Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Breast Cancer

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent assessment he has made of the mortality incidence of breast cancer in Wales relative to the rest of the United Kingdom. [14156]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): Mortality from breast cancer in Wales is higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom, which may be partly a reflection of the higher incidence of the disease in Wales. Overall mortality from breast cancer in Wales fell by nearly 10 per cent. between 1988 and 1994, a rate of decline slightly greater than the UK average.

Mrs. Clwyd: Why are lower targets being set in Wales than in England for a reduction in the incidence of mortality? Why are Welsh women expected to take second best? Before the Minister answers, since Scott has demonstrated that the Conservative party is in the

business of giving misleading and inaccurate answers, can he tell us whether he is telling the whole truth, part of the truth or his version of the truth?

Mr. Richards: The hon. Lady has not lost her talent for being offensive. In Wales, the target is to reduce the breast cancer death rate in the screened age group—the group aged 50 to 64—by at least 25 per cent. by 2000. Ladies in Wales are not regarded as second best to ladies in England.

Revenue Support Grant

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has had from local authorities in Wales concerning the level of revenue support grant proposed for the new unitary authorities. [14157]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): Several. My proposals for the 1996–97 local government revenue settlement were approved by the House on 8 February.

Mr. Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware that the figures of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy show that the Clwyd county council area has lost roughly 400 teachers in the past three years and that, in that time, the number of pupils has increased by 700? That must mean larger class sizes. The level of revenue support grant means that the new unitary authorities in Clwyd are expected to fund teachers' pay by efficiency savings. That has to mean another cut and fewer teachers. What does the Secretary of State want to say to parents of my area, whose children will be taught in even bigger classes from April?

Mr. Hague: Central Government support for local government spending is £864 per head in Wales, which is £132 per head higher than in England. When local authorities complain about that settlement, council tax


payers and parents should ask themselves, "Is every penny spent by the council spent wisely?" and, "Are all the things that local government spends money on necessary?" It is the right settlement and a generous one. It was approved by the House by a majority of 72 votes on 8 February and the hon. Gentleman did not even vote against it.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Opposition think that the revenue support grant is insufficient, the onus is on them to say how much it ought to be and where they would get the money from?

Mr. Hague: Yes. There has been a notable silence from the Opposition Front Bench on that subject. They have been unable to say whether they think that the local government settlement should be higher, lower, a bit higher or a lot higher and they refused to say so throughout our debate on the subject two weeks ago. It is time that they came clean about their policy, instead of pretending to the voters that they would spend more but wanting to say in the House that they would not spend more at all.

Mr. Alex Carlile: When considering the representations, how will the Secretary of State deal with the shortfall of more than £500,000 in the education budget in Powys caused by the decision of 200 to 300 16-year-olds to return to school rather than go to the local further education college? Will he ensure that the money that would have followed them to the college follows them back to their schools, so that they really have a choice about where to be educated?

Mr. Hague: I do not think that it is possible to adjust budgets for local government and for the Further Education Funding Council on the basis of decisions made in each area. It is up to local authorities to manage the resources that are available to them, to use them as efficiently as possible and to serve the interests of their local residents as best as they can.

Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that council tax levels in Wales are 40 per cent. lower than they are in England, which represents a very good deal for the people of Wales? Notwithstanding that fact, does he agree that education in Wales is in good heart and in good condition, which we should welcome, and that we should be congratulating teachers in Wales rather than decrying their efforts?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right that council tax levels in Wales are substantially lower than those in England. As he said, in recent years there have been marked improvements in education in Wales, as last week's report of our chief inspector of schools demonstrated. There is further work to be done, and the Government have a wide-ranging programme of initiatives to continue to raise standards in education in the coming years.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his own parliamentary answers show that revenue support grant has been reduced as a proportion of local government spending? Will he further confirm—again from statistics issued by his office—that local education

authorities have reduced their administrative costs, despite which class sizes have increased, and that, under this year's settlement, central Government support for local government will reduce, as a result of which most local authorities in Wales expect to make cuts of approximately 3 per cent. in their education budgets, let alone in any of their other budgets? Why will not the Secretary of State do something positive to provide the resources to help teachers and local authorities, who are doing a good job against all the odds—and in spite of the Government?

Mr. Hague: The figures show that, in the current year, the Government will provide 88.6 per cent. of local government total standard spending whereas in the coming year they will provide 87.8 per cent., which is a change of 0.8 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues object to that, it is incumbent on them to say what they think the percentage should be. I hand it to the hon. Gentleman because, in the debate 11 days ago, when the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), asked him whether he would spend more on education, alone among Labour Front Benchers, he said, "Yes." We now wait to hear from him how much that amount would be.

European Currency

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of the effect a single European currency will have on the Welsh economy. [14158]

Mr. Hague: None.

Mr. Jones: That is the most astonishing answer. The Secretary of State for Wales has made no assessment whatsoever of the largest potential economic change that we can recall being predicted in recent times, which may occur no more than three years from now. The Secretary of State, with all his resources in the Welsh Office, has made no assessment. Is that because he has no interest in Wales, or is it because he wants to ensure that there is no extra room for argument on the Conservative Benches on that most vital issue?

Mr. Hague: It is because this country has a choice about a single currency, thanks to the opt-out negotiated at Maastricht by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We will exercise that choice if or when the occasion arises. Any assessment of the benefits or otherwise would have to take into account the particular interests of Wales. As the United Kingdom has one currency, any decision would have to be based on the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Is not it a remarkable tribute to the economic management of this country that it is one of the few that could meet the convergence criteria? Our unemployment is falling, whereas it is increasing in other countries as they try to meet those criteria. Is not it clear that Conservative Members are safe on Europe, and that uncertainty results from the readiness of Opposition Members to sign anything that comes out of Brussels?

Mr. Hague: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I sometimes get the impression that Opposition Members would sign any piece of paper that floated across the English channel. He is also right to say that we now face extraordinarily good economic circumstances—the best economic circumstances and prospects that we have had for a generation. Unemployment in Wales fell again last week—it did so by more than 1,000—and that record will continue as long as the Government are in office to pursue the policies that have achieved it.

Unitary Authorities

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of Welsh local government to discuss the administration effects of the changeover to unitary authorities on 1 April. [14159]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Last Thursday, when I met the hon. Gentleman and representatives of his local authority.

Mr. Murphy: As we are now six weeks away from vesting day for the new unitary authorities, does the Minister agree that it is vital to ensure that—by that time, former—county council services, such as education and social services, are properly safeguarded? Will he therefore ensure that groups such as county youth orchestras and drama groups such as Gwent theatre in education are properly protected by a sound system of joint arrangements?

Mr. Jones: As the hon. Gentleman will know, decisions on local functions can be taken only by local authorities themselves in the light of local circumstances and priorities. Our reform legislation contained a unique feature—a service delivery plan that had to be published in draft form last November and that will be finalised for each of the 22 new unitary authorities in Wales. That unique step enables everyone to see what provision is being made by local authorities. I hope that as many people as possible will take the opportunity to comment on the plans.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State discuss those issues with the civic leaders of Wales when he is guest of honour at their annual civic dinner in Cardiff next month? Will he confirm that that is the same civic dinner as he attacked on 8 February, producing an extraordinary report in the Western Mail on 9 February? Is it not an example of the Government's hypocrisy—or should I say duplicitousness—to attack a civil dinner in February and be its guest of honour in March? Is that not an example of dine as I say, not dine as I do?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman asked two questions. The answer to the first is that my right hon. Friend always welcomes any occasion to have meaningful discussions with local authorities. The answer to the second is no—the hon. Gentleman should read Hansard.

Countryside (Development)

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of areas of countryside which have been developed for (a) industrial and (b) other use in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [14160]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Reliable information on the take-up of land in Wales is not available.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that 15,000 acres have been reclaimed at 900 sites since the Welsh Development Agency was established and that work on a further 100 sites is in hand? Would it not be tragic for Wales and for the whole of Britain if the Pembroke coast was allowed to be disfigured by the oil spillage in recent days from a tanker that ought to have been double-hulled? Will he give an undertaking to the House to do all that he can to ensure that marine life is secured, that beaches are cleaned as thoroughly and as soon as possible and that birdlife is safeguarded?

Mr. Jones: The Welsh Development Agency's land reclamation programme is the largest landscape improvement programme in Europe. Since its formation in 1976, the agency has reclaimed more than 15,000 acres at 900 sites and work has started on a further 100 sites. I share my hon. Friend's concern about what has happened at Milford Haven. We all want to ensure that everything possible is done there and I am advised that all the necessary manpower and materials are available to meet present needs.

Mr. Llwyd: Why has the Welsh Office dragged its heels so terribly over the out-of-town shopping planning policy guidance? It has been enforced in England by the Department of the Environment for the past 18 months, but the Welsh Office is still playing around with it. Meanwhile, our town centres are being run down and virgin land is being used to build out-of-town shopping malls to the detriment of everyone in Wales. The Welsh Office should get its act together.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman creates a good soundbite, but once again he is not right. There has been no dragging of heels. He will know that we have a draft planning policy guidance and that we are now considering all the responses to it. The draft guidance lays out, very simply, the sequential approach to retailing in Wales. First, consideration should be given to town centres and only then should consideration be given to out-of-town locations.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am disappointed that the Secretary of State chose not to answer this question—he must have known that a question about the Sea Empress would arise. The Opposition are concerned about the potential consequences of the incident to which the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) referred. There is a unique and precious assemblage of bird, sea mammal and marine life in the area affected by the Sea Empress incident. The Pembrokeshire cliffs are a candidate for special protection area status. Skomer is a marine nature


reserve. The coast to the east of St. Anne's head is a possible European special area of conservation, as are the islands of Skokholm, Skomer and Grassholm.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question, not make a statement.

Mr. Davies: Given that the whole coast is a priceless part of our national heritage, which good fortune has so far protected, will the Minister convey to the Secretary of State the great concern of the Opposition and ensure that the official view of the Welsh Office is that there has to be the fullest possible public inquiry?

Mr. Jones: I have no need to convey that concern to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because the hon. Gentleman only echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has already voiced. We all have the same anxieties about what has happened. The concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is amply demonstrated by the fact that, as soon as he heard about the incident, he changed his diary so as to be able to visit Milford Haven straight away on Friday morning to see for himself. Calling for a public inquiry at this stage is, at best, premature. The Department of Transport's marine accident investigation branch will investigate and report.

Inward Investment

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about inward investment levels. [14163]

Mr. Hague: Inward investment into Wales continues at high levels and I expect this trend to continue. Already this financial year, almost 8,000 new and safeguarded jobs have been promised with associated capital investment of almost £600 million.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, if this country were to sign up to the social chapter or adopt a national minimum wage or a Welsh Assembly, which would make Wales an over-governed country, inward investment would dry up?

Mr. Hague: I fear that my hon. Friend is right. What attracts companies to the United Kingdom, and to Wales in particular, is good industrial relations, lower tax on companies and less regulation than in other parts of Europe. None of those would obtain if the Labour party was in power.

Mr. Llew Smith: If inward investment has been so effective under the Government, can the Secretary of State explain why, according to the Library, since the Government came to power in May 1979, we have lost 500 million days through unemployment? Will he comment on the likely effect of those lost days on the economy and on the individuals and families who have been destroyed by it in communities such as mine in Blaenau Gwent?

Mr. Hague: Over the past 18 months, unemployment in Wales has been at or around the United Kingdom average. We are the first Government since the 1920s to

be able to say that. What is more, unemployment in Wales is lower than it is in Italy, France and Spain and our major international competitors across Europe. It is continuing to fall and it will continue to fall if we maintain our present policies.

Mr. Barry Porter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason for that high level of inward investment is the cultural facilities offered in Wales? If so, would he take a sympathetic look at the future funding of Theatr Clwyd in Mold when the new authorities come into being?

Mr. Hague: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that, 11 days ago, I announced that the Government would be prepared to write off the £1.3 million debts of Theatr Clwyd if local authorities would guarantee that it would continue to run as at present for the foreseeable future. I am pleased that, since then, the Arts Council of Wales has announced additional help for the theatre and I hope that its future can be secured.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the Labour-controlled Merthyr borough council and the Labour-created Welsh Development Agency on their recent success in bringing the Halla investment to Merthyr Tydfil? Will he confirm that, since the last general election, total inward investment in Wales up to and including the current financial year has fallen by 40 per cent.? Does he agree that at least part of that fall is due to the Welsh Office's failure to fund the Welsh Development Agency properly, its failure to support local authority initiatives, its failure to secure available European Union investment and its failure to protect our development area status? Would the Secretary of State like to set an example to some of his less fastidious colleagues and admit to some responsibility for the consequences of his Department's policies?

Mr. Hague: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Wales has done well to maintain a high level of inward investment against increased competition from the rest of the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe. I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Merthyr Tydfil council and other local authorities which have helped to attract inward investment. It is a team effort, involving local authorities, the Welsh Development Agency and my colleagues and me in the Welsh Office—as did the investment by Halla Industries of Korea, with which I had three meetings when I visited Korea last September. It is a team effort involving all of those people, and it is clearly working.

Schools (Information Technology)

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to promote the use of information technology in Welsh schools. [14164]

Mr. Richards: In the current financial year, we are providing grants totalling up to £2.7 million to support the acquisition and greater use of information technology in primary and secondary schools. A further £3 million will be available in the next financial year. On top of that, I have just announced the latest stage of our £3 million initiative to equip more than 1,600 primary and special


schools in Wales with multi-media hardware and software, or portable computers and the training to go with them.

Mrs. Campbell: Has not the Welsh Office done a single-manufacturer deal to supply that information technology equipment to Welsh schools? Will that mean that schools will not have any choice about which IT equipment they purchase? Is that not another example of a Tory central Government dictatorship?

Mr. Richards: The Welsh Office steering group decided what equipment would be chosen and that group comprised representatives of Her Majesty's chief inspector's office and local education authorities. As to choice, all primary schools in Wales were asked whether they wanted a multi-media suite or a portable computer. The hon. Lady may shake her head, but if she listens she will learn something. Some 93 per cent. of schools chose the multi-media suite over the portable computer, and that is what they will receive.

Tourism

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the contribution of section 4 grants to tourism in Wales. [14165]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: In 1994–95, the Wales tourist board approved grants of £3.6 million, which secures capital investment of £20.7 million, and that should save or maintain more than 400 jobs.

Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that section 4 grants in Wales represent extremely good value for money, particularly as they create jobs? Can he confirm the figure that was recently quoted to me by the Wales tourist board—that as little as £6,000 in public money is required to create a new job in the tourism industry in Wales? What does my hon. Friend think would have a greater impact on Welsh tourism: the rugby World cup or a national minimum wage?

Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend that the grants available through the Wales tourist board are a very effective use of taxpayers' money in taking forward an important segment of the Welsh economy. Tourism contributes about £1.3 billion a year to the Welsh economy. As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I rush to agree with his premise that the rugby World cup will prove a great advantage to Wales—not least because of the excellent way in which the Welsh team played on Saturday. They did not deserve to lose by two points. The rugby World cup will provide very positive opportunities for Wales—unlike the job-destroying measures that the Labour party would impose.

Mr. Ainger: Does the Under-Secretary accept that the Sea Empress incident has caused great concern to the tourism industry in Pembrokeshire and that several serious questions need to be asked about large vessels' propulsion systems, steering systems and hull design and about port activities at Milford Haven, and that those serious

questions can be answered only by a full public inquiry, along the same lines as the Donaldson inquiry into the Braer incident?

Mr. Jones: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern but, as I said to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), it is at best premature to suggest a public inquiry. The Department of Transport's marine accident investigation branch will inquire into the incident and report.
We must concentrate on ensuring that all necessary action is taken—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is to make a statement about the matter later this afternoon—but it is premature to call for a public inquiry now.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Given his tremendous enthusiasm for section 4 grants in Wales and the tremendous benefits that we all agree that they have achieved, can the Minister give the House a categoric assurance that the Government will not abolish section 4 grants?

Mr. Gwilym Jones: There is no intention of abolishing section 4 grants, but we must continue to pay attention to the amounts of money that are provided to the Wales tourist board and how they are spent. We want to ensure that they are spent more and more effectively and that Wales continues to develop its tourist industry—and not, as Opposition Members would probably want, separate Wales and make it less attractive, especially to tourists, who represent inward investment.

Welsh Assembly

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received about a Welsh Assembly. [14166]

Mr. Hague: Five written representations and various others.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a Welsh Assembly would be a complete waste of public money—money that would be far better spent on health and education? Is not it significant that Labour Members are completely divided about the form that such an assembly should take and are in a shambles? Should not the idea be consigned to the dustbin?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right—it would be a waste of public money, divide the United Kingdom and diminish the influence of Wales here at Westminster. She is also right to draw attention to the difficulty that Opposition Members have on the matter. In a recent BBC programme, some members of the Labour party insisted that their assembly plan involved legislative power; others insist that it would not. The attempts of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) to clear the confusion only confused some people who had not been at the start. It is time that Labour Members sorted themselves out.

Mr. Donald Anderson: As we gradually move into an election campaign, the Secretary of State will stand on political platforms parroting the formula that the Welsh


Assembly will inevitably lead to the fragmentation of the United Kingdom. Will he stop for a moment and consider whether he is not demeaning and insulting the people of Wales, by implying that we are not as politically sophisticated as the people of Spain, Germany, Belgium and France, who have regional assemblies while remaining part of a united country?

Mr. Hague: The people of Wales are sufficiently politically sophisticated to have voted four to one against an assembly last time the proposition was put to them. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that. A great many people in Wales believe that it would be a roomful of hot air that would serve no useful purpose. If the Labour party's plans were to be the subject of a referendum again, they would again be rejected.

Mr. Wigley: Is not it revealing that this question was asked by a Member of Parliament from the home counties and answered by one from Yorkshire, both of whom appear to know better than do the Welsh people themselves? A couple of weeks ago, when the Secretary of State appeared on the "Week In, Week Out" programme, did he not give the impression that there was not one issue on which he did not know better than 80 or 100 elected people from Wales? Does not that come over as the height of arrogance? How on earth can he justify overruling all the interests of Wales in that cavalier way?

Mr. Hague: We get a foretaste of what such an assembly would be like from the difficulties of Labour Members. When the hon. Member for Caerphilly wanted to propose a proportional voting system at a meeting in the House of Commons, the Daily Post reported that the Labour party in Wales ganged up on him, there was an explosion of anger and the mood of the meeting was vicious. If that is a foretaste of an assembly, the people of Wales want nothing to do with it.

Schools (Vocational Courses)

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent action he has taken to encourage schools in Wales to offer vocational courses. [14167]

Mr. Richards: Our "bright future" programme charts the way ahead. General national vocational qualifications are being introduced in a range of subjects in schools and colleges throughout Wales. By September 1996 a total of 46 schools will be participating in our development scheme for 14 to 16-year-olds.

Mr. Arnold: Is it not significant that there will be an even wider choice of GNVQ subjects in Wales than in England? Is that not extremely important, given that the requirement for skills is vital to the success of Britain as a whole and of Wales in particular in the economy of the future?

Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The development scheme in Wales is supporting the introduction of full GNVQ, GNVQ units and GNVQ part 1, because the national curriculum requirements are different in Wales and permit schools greater flexibility in timetabling.

Mr. Hain: How can the Minister expect schools to undertake additional responsibilities when he is cutting the budget of the new Neath and Port Talbot authority by more than £7 million, which will have a savage impact on local schools, nursery provision and the rest for which West Glamorgan has a proud record? Should not the Government approach that settlement afresh and grant the new unitary authority the extra funds that it so desperately needs to maintain essential services?

Mr. Richards: Whenever a Labour Member speaks on education, the stench of hypocrisy fills the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that local authorities and local education authorities decide their own priorities.

Duffryn Gardens

Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to keep Duffryn gardens open to the public after 1 April. [14168]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The lease for Duffryn house and gardens is proposed to be transferred to the residuary body for Wales for a maximum period of 12 months, to allow the new Vale of Glamorgan council to progress its plans. That will also enable the gardens to remain open to the public after 1 April this year.

Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that Duffryn gardens is a unique feature not only in the Vale of Glamorgan but in the whole of Wales? Can he give an assurance that during the time when the gardens rest with the residuary body they will be properly maintained and that all co-operation will be extended to Vale of Glamorgan council to ensure that that happens until a long-term solution is found?

Mr. Jones: I rush to agree with my hon. Friend. It is a matter of the deepest regret that local government has brought Duffryn house and gardens to the verge of closure. Because of our regard for the gardens, we have acted to enable the rescue plan to go ahead. I give my hon. Friend the fullest assurance that I will do anything that I can to see that come about, including looking to the new Vale of Glamorgan council to carry forward work in the gardens.

Mr. Rogers: Twice today—first in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and then in response to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney)—the Minister has adopted not just a hypocritical but a Pontius Pilate attitude in washing his hands of major institutions in Wales. Does the Minister not realise that many of the institutions to which reference was made earlier, which were run under joint arrangements, will be cut loose as a result of his local government reforms and will not be able to continue providing for the youth and other people of Wales as they have in the past?

Mr. Jones: No. The hon. Gentleman and his friends have the expertise in hypocrisy. They are the people who say one thing and do another. We are the people who have acted, because of our regard for Duffryn gardens. It is not this Government who brought about the current situation. Local government action threatened the closure of Duffryn gardens.

Male Unemployment

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the figure for male unemployment in (a) Newport, Gwent and (b) Wales, at the latest available date; and if he will express the figures in percentage
terms. [14170]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: As at January 1996, the respective figures were 6,161 and 86,544, or 10.9 per cent. and 11.6 per cent.

Mr. Hughes: May I remind the Minister that in the next few months the opening of the second Severn crossing will provide tremendous opportunities for the Welsh economy? To coincide with that, what new initiatives will the Welsh Office take to bring new jobs to our hard-pressed communities?

Mr. Jones: I can confirm that the second Severn crossing will be opening shortly. Had the hon. Gentleman asked me, I would also have confirmed that it is a tribute to the Government's private finance initiative, which has enabled economic capacity in Wales to expand far more quickly than with traditional financing arrangements. I should also like to confirm the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the new jobs which have been announced in his area recently. I have given the example of the merger of Sumitomo and Surface Technology Systems Ltd.—a £5 million expansion creating 100 new jobs in Newport. Where is the hon. Gentleman's welcome for that and for the way in which the Welsh economy is moving forward?

Education Standards

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he intends to introduce to improve education standards in primary and secondary schools in Wales. [14171]

Mr. Hague: The "bright future" initiative sets out our full programme of action to raise education standards for all pupils at school. It looks to all schools to set targets for improvement year on year. I have also published my requirements for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools for Wales in 1996–97. They will ensure that the inspectorate continues to give close attention to the quality of teaching and standards in schools.

Mr. Williams: The Secretary of State may know that education standards in schools in my constituency are very good. They are above the Welsh average and that for England and Scotland. How will they be helped by the acute stringency in local education authorities? I have a letter from the head teacher of a comprehensive school that is about to lose between 2.4 and 4.0 teachers in the current financial year. Carmarthenshire county council will lose 57 secondary school teachers, thanks to this year's revenue support grant settlement. How will that affect education standards in my constituency and for the people of Wales?

Mr. Hague: As I have explained in answer to previous questions, I am giving more money to local authorities in the coming year. It is up to them to make sure that a proportion of that increase feeds through into education.

He will also know that education standards are not just about funding. A few weeks ago, I visited a school at Merthyr which has achieved 100 per cent. improvement in examination results in one year. That is to do with the standards set by staff, discipline, clear objectives and dedicated staff—quite irrespective of funding. An enormous amount can be achieved in addition to providing proper funding for our schools.

Further Education Colleges

Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to the funding formula for the further education colleges. [14172]

Mr. Richards: It is for the Further Education Funding Council for Wales to determine, within the total provision made available to it by the House, the allocation of funds to further education institutions in Wales.

Mr. Dafis: The Welsh Office and its Ministers are responsible for ensuring that a proper range of courses is available to students in further education in all parts of Wales. Does that not mean that we must have a more realistic formula for funding colleges that serve sparsely populated areas and therefore have limited scope for recruitment? Will the Minister ensure that at the end of the year, when the funding formula is revisited, changes are made to ensure that Coleg Ceredigion and others receive an adequate level of funding?

Mr. Richards: The recurring funding methodology takes account of the courses that are available. It consists of three stages: recruitment, learning and attainment. The volume of units earned at each stage gives colleges incentives to help students to choose the most appropriate learning programme. The funding methodology is also fine-tuned to reward widening participation, plurality factors, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and bilingualism.

Regional Theatre

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the Arts Council of Wales to discuss funding of regional theatre. [14173]

Mr. Richards: I meet the Arts Council of Wales regularly as part of the annual cycle of corporate and operational planning and performance review. The next meeting is in March, to review the council's operational plan for 1996–97.

Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister accept on behalf of the people of Delyn and of Mold their great thanks for the additional contribution of £200,000 that the Arts Council has made to help keep open Theatr Clwyd this year? The money is very welcome. Will he do more to encourage neighbouring local authorities to give the theatre assistance, so that it stays open this year and in future years?

Mr. Richards: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the part played by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department in ensuring the continued success of Theatr Clwyd.


As the hon. Gentleman has said, and as my right hon. Friend has insisted, the neighbouring local authorities will, we hope, contribute to future recurrent funding of the theatre.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Crown Prosecution Service (Liaison)

Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Attorney-General what action he is taking to improve liaison between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. [14186]

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The Crown Prosecution Service and the police are working closely together on a number of initiatives, including co-ordinated training, greater use of information technology and a scheme involving CPS lawyers giving on-the-spot legal advice in busy police stations.

Sir Wyn Roberts: In thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply and expressing my satisfaction at the co-operation between the two services—contrary to the impression given by some of the media from time to time—may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reject the shoddy, unwarranted slur on his integrity, as did the six Queen's counsel who signed a letter to that effect published in The Times on Saturday? Will he reaffirm what we already know—namely, his total commitment to fairness in all matters relating to his office?

The Attorney-General: I am most grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said. I can reaffirm not only that I was careful and fair on that occasion, but that the 139 lawyers of the Crown Prosecution Service are working day in and day out in Wales to assist the 6,200 police officers in the common task of bringing alleged wrongdoers before the courts, firmly but fairly.

Mr. Skinner: Why does the Attorney-General not do the decent thing, as Ministers used to do at one time, and resign?

The Attorney-General: The decent thing, although the hon. Gentleman might not recognise it, is to give clear and careful legal advice when it is asked for. And that is what I did.

Prosecution of Juveniles

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received from the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the prosecution of juveniles [14187]

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The prosecution of youth offenders is one of a number of issues that my right hon. and learned Friend and I discuss in our regular meetings with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Is he aware that the Crown Prosecution youth service warmly welcomes my private

Member's Bill dealing with offensive weapons—in particular, because it gives powers of arrest to police to stop and challenge teenage hooligans carrying knives? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of a problem brought to light by the experience of the youth service—the fact that the prosecutions of a large number of 14-year-olds have to be discontinued because the CPS cannot prove that they know the difference between right and serious wrong?
Does my hon. and learned Friend further agree that it is extremely important to show our determination—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is much too long a question.

The Solicitor-General: Yes. Two judges in the divisional court, in the case of C, held that the presumption was no longer part of our law. In the House of Lords, five judges held that it was. So far as I am aware, there has been no call for the two judges in the divisional court to resign. As a result of that decision in re C, the Government are looking very closely at the position to see whether any reform of the law is necessary. The Crown Prosecution Service is drafting guidance, to be issued to investigators and prosecutors, to help them to obtain and present whatever evidence is necessary in court to show that such young people know the difference between right and wrong.

Public Interest Immunity Certificates

Mr. Hain: To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to reform the procedure in respect of public interest immunity certificates. [14188]

The Attorney-General: The recommendations in the Scott report with respect to public interest immunity will receive careful and detailed consideration. Sir Richard Scott has made it clear that there was no conspiracy and no cover-up. He casts not the slightest doubt on my integrity. The advice that I gave was fully in accordance with the law as it then stood.

Mr. Hain: The issue is the Attorney-General's competence. Does he accept the verdict of section G of the Scott report that he was personally at fault in the advice that he gave in relation to public interest immunity certificates? As the first Law Officer of the Crown and the Government's chief legal adviser, how can the Attorney-General possibly stay in office after Scott's savage condemnation of his incompetence and the subsequent public collapse in confidence in his role? Surely the only course—

Madam Speaker: Order. That is much too long. The hon. Gentleman has already put a question.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is continuing what seems to be the Labour party policy of distortion on that issue. My integrity is unquestioned. I took the most careful legal advice. My view of the law is endorsed by a succession of legal decisions, by the express views of a number of top Queen's counsel and today by the view—expressed in trenchant terms—of Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a current Law Lord.
The one instance in which the report says that I was personally at fault rests on Sir Richard Scott's different view of the law, with which all those others respectfully disagree. I took specific steps to ensure, through my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's special public interest immunity certificate, that the judge was alerted to the need for special care. He was. After proper argument, all necessary documents were disclosed. There was a completely fair trial, as three defence counsel have publicly confirmed.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the immense anger that many of us feel at the bogus and ill-informed attacks by the Opposition? Is he aware that the allegations against him are no worse than when a High Court judge's decision is reversed on a point of law by the Court of Appeal, which decision may itself in due course be reversed by the House of Lords?
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that our anger is the greater because we know that he took the best advice in the Temple before he gave his advice, and that that advice has been upheld not only by the best lawyers in the Temple but by the best lawyers in the Court of Appeal? Those lawyers say that in those matters of law the Attorney-General was right and Sir Richard Scott was plainly wrong.

The Attorney-General: I am indeed so aware, and the House will join me in anticipating that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who may be about to ask me a question, will make it his very first task to withdraw the statement that he made in 1992, when he accused Ministers of being prepared to connive at the sacrifice of accused men. The Scott report has made it clear that that was wholly unfounded.

Mr. John Morris: Whatever else there is in the Scott report about conniving—which I accept—should not the Attorney-General accept the guilty verdicts that Scott returned upon him: that he had a major responsibility for the inadequacy of the prosecutor's instructions, and that he was personally at fault in not ensuring that the Deputy Prime Minister's reservations were conveyed? Mr. Moses asserted that his attitude was no different from that of other Ministers.
Is it not bizarre that the Attorney-General had still, many months later, not read the documents on which he had advised Ministers, and that the Deputy Prime Minister's letter about a difficult matter was unread for a period of three to seven weeks? Is that not a finding of breathtaking incompetence? Where does the buck stop? Should not the Attorney-General go?

The Attorney-General: The letter was not unread, and that point—contrary to the inquiry's own procedures—was never put to me. I remind the House that, after I had been alerted by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I took specific steps to ensure—through my right hon. Friend's specially drafted public interest immunity certificate, which was recognised by everyone in court—that the judge should look at every document.
The case could not have been more fairly prosecuted by prosecuting counsel. He invited the judge to look at every document. The judge did so, and he decided, in accordance with the law as understood at the time, what

documents should and should not be made available. The trial then started the following week and, as three defence counsel themselves have said, was completely fair.

Sir Peter Hordern: In regard to the public interest immunity certificates, is it not the case that defence counsel appearing for Matrix Churchill not only made no criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend, but wrote to The Times commending him and the way in which the certificates had been handled? If that is the case, what justification have the Opposition for making such a fuss?

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The House and the country should know that the trial was conducted with scrupulous fairness. I welcome the Scott report, because those who read it carefully will see that for themselves.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Attorney-General—who advises Ministers on legal matters—explain to the House now what he understands to be the meaning of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility for departmental actions? If it does not apply to him now, when does it apply, and why?

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman should read the report carefully. I repeat for his benefit that I had two involvements in the matter. The first was to advise on the law. I did so carefully and conscientiously, not only in accordance with the top legal advice that I obtained, but in a way which, since the report's publication on Thursday, has been endorsed by the great majority of senior members of the Bar—who understand these matters—as well as the higher judiciary, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will have read today.
On the question of communicating the views of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I have made it clear that I did so in a specially designed certificate which brought all relevant matters to the court. All relevant documents were before the court when the trial began, and there was a completely fair trial. In those circumstances, I submit that no one could have acted more fairly.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether judges created each part of the disclosure system for such documents? Can he say whether he is minded to propose to the House that the system should now be frozen on a statutory basis, or that we should continue to rely on judges to develop the process?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is quite right. This is judge-made law. It has been very carefully considered by Sir Richard Scott, and the Government have made it clear that they will look at his recommendations for the future with great care. That is just what we shall do.

Scott Report

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on references in the Scott report to his official role. [14189]

The Attorney-General: As will be clear, I welcome the Scott report, which conclusively shows that there was no conspiracy to send innocent men to gaol. My role was to advise Ministers on the law of public interest immunity. I did so carefully, and strictly in accordance with the accepted view of the law as it then stood. Following my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's request and the drafting of his special public interest immunity certificate, I took the exceptional course of calling in the prosecution team, who assured me that the prosecution was fair.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Attorney-General realise that he has not managed to persuade public opinion since the Scott report was published, and that he has not even managed to persuade some of his own Back Benchers,

who rightly take the view that out of honour he should resign? Has the Attorney-General not made the comparison between the way in which he pathetically clings to office and the way in which, five years ago this month, members of the armed forces reacted, as one would expect them to do, to Saddam' s criminal aggression? They made no excuses. They acted honourably. It is a pity that the Attorney-General does not do the same.

The Attorney-General: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I acted carefully and properly throughout. If there has been any distortion, it is in the material of which I have received a copy today and which, regrettably—indeed, lamentably—is being sent around by the hon. Gentleman's party.

Higher Education

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on higher education.
Just over 30 years ago, the Robbins committee set out a vision for expanding higher education in Great Britain. Since then, higher education has been transformed beyond the expectations even of Robbins. It no longer caters just for a privileged elite but provides opportunities for a significant proportion of our young people. In Robbins' day, just one young person in 17 went on to higher education. Now, the figure is approaching one in three.
Higher education no longer exists to educate just young people—predominantly young men—prior to their outset on a career for life, and there are as many female students as there are male students, and more mature than young entrants. In total, there are more than 1 million full-time students in the United Kingdom—five times as many as in Robbins' day. In addition, half a million people study part-time.
Much of this growth has taken place since 1988, as a result of independence for polytechnics and colleges, abolishing the binary line, and introducing more competitive funding. Thanks to those policies, higher education now provides more highly qualified people than ever before for the labour market.
The number of newly qualified graduates gaining first degrees each year in the United Kingdom has doubled since 1979, and more than a third of those are science, maths and engineering graduates. Our graduation rate is now one of the highest in Europe, second only to Denmark in the European Union, and the UK produces more science graduates relative to the young work force than any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country. By the year 2001, the number of graduates in the work force is likely to be well over 3 million—twice as high as in 1981. It is not just academic qualifications to which higher education leads. More than 15 per cent. of those who have followed undergraduate courses leave with professional qualifications.
Impressive though those achievements are, future success requires universities and colleges to continue to develop, while preserving their best traditions. After such fast growth, it is time to take stock and to consider the future of higher education. That is why, just over a year ago, I launched a review of higher education with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of Sate for Northern Ireland. We asked consumers as well as producers for their views.
Their responses paid tribute to higher education's continuing role in advancing understanding and learning, and in developing the powers of the mind. But they also emphasised the growing importance of higher education in securing our future competitiveness and economic growth. The global markets in which the UK has to compete have been transformed by an information revolution and other technological advances. Our economic success will increasingly depend on higher levels of knowledge, understanding and skills. Higher

education has a vital role to play. It can supply both young and mature people with those higher levels of skills and understanding, and the ability to adapt to changing knowledge.
Today's graduates face a world different from their predecessors'. They must be prepared for changes in the nature of work and the greater demands it makes. Increasingly, they will need to switch career more than once in their lifetime. We must ensure that they are equipped with the skills and flexibility needed by the labour market of the 21st century, both through initial education and through updating and upskilling throughout their lives. Higher education must be in the best shape possible to meet those needs.
As the pace of change quickens, there will be a greater premium on the capacity to innovate. The universities' contribution to the research base underpins the UK's ability to harness scientific and technological advances. It will become ever more important in enhancing wealth creation and our quality of life. Higher education can also help to drive local and regional regeneration through services to employers.
As the world around is changing, so too is higher education itself. Changes in institutional structures, modes of study and information technology are opening up opportunities to a broader range of students, both at home and abroad. Links with other parts of education and training are becoming more important, and boundaries are blurring. Higher education no longer needs to take place only inside a university or college. New technology enables more students to study in the workplace or from home.
Our consultations have made clear the extent of changes in both higher education itself and the context in which it operates. A huge and exciting agenda faces all of us with an interest in higher education. The scale of that agenda exceeds anything facing higher education since the early 1960s.
Thirty-five years ago—almost to the day—the then Prime Minister proposed the appointment of the Robbins committee to review higher education in Britain and advise on its development. The Robbins report provided a landmark for higher education policy that has stood the test of time well. But it is time to take a fresh and comprehensive look at the challenges facing higher education as we approach the 21st century.
So, with the agreement of the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I intend to appoint a committee of inquiry into higher education. [Interruption.] In carrying out its task, the committee will make appropriate arrangements to take account of the distinctive features of higher education in different parts of the UK. [Interruption.] I am delighted that Sir Ron Dearing has agreed to chair the committee.
We propose to invite the committee to make recommendations on how the shape, structure, size and funding of higher education, including support for students, should develop to meet the needs of the UK over the next 20 years. We shall supply the committee with the preparatory work that has already been undertaken in the education Departments as part of my review.
We shall consult widely on the committee's precise terms of reference and composition. I shall place a copy of the draft terms of reference and the consultation letter


in the Library. In due course, I shall make a further announcement on the committee's remit and membership in the light of the consultations. I expect the committee to start work after Easter, and to report by the summer of 1997. [Interruption.]

Mr. David Blunkett: Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Get on with it.

Mr. Blunkett: I am getting on with it, thank you. Hon. Members must not act like a rabble.
May I take the unusual step of welcoming the statement, and commending the Secretary of State for her approach to the national inquiry? The public are heartily sick and tired of the knockabout politics that characterises so much of our public debate. It is in marked contrast to the antics of last week, therefore, that the Secretary of State has been prepared to offer a bipartisan national approach to the important long-term question of the part that further and higher education can play in the economic and social future of the United Kingdom. It is in that spirit that I welcome the inquiry.
Will the Secretary of State confirm her willingness to continue her approach to seeking solutions that will build agreement, in the same way as the Robbins committee built agreement and facilitated a way forward more than 30 years ago? I welcome the appointment of Sir Ron Dearing. Will she confirm that the approach that she adopted in developing the terms of reference with me will be carried forward into developing the membership of the inquiry? Will she lay to rest the belief that the inquiry will be a short-term fix? Will she rather confirm that it will be a long-term look at the needs of the United Kingdom for the next two decades?
Does the Secretary of State agree that we now have an opportunity to build on the four key principles of Robbins by adding to them—in this European Year of Lifelong Learning—commitments to lifelong learning for everyone, to the value of further and higher education to the economic and social well-being of each individual and to the nation as a whole, and to placing quality, equity and access at the very forefront of our deliberations?
Does the Secretary of State agree that we have a choice as a nation as to whether we are a low-wage, low-tech, low-added-value economy, or whether we build on the knowledge base that is possible in the decades ahead to produce a high-tech, high-wage, high-added-value Britain that can compete at the cutting edge of the global economy?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the way in which we proceed with the inquiry in terms of Britain's future needs in the global economy will determine whether our people have jobs that are built on the knowledge base and innovation that higher education offers the United Kingdom of the future, or whether we merely fill existing jobs? Does she agree that we must use higher education to foster enterprise and innovation, so that higher education itself can help to create employment, rather than simply fill the job market?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the humanities, arts and social sciences—as well as technology and science—will have a key role in the new economy of the

future not only in offering opportunities to individuals, but in opening up opportunities world wide for our industry and commerce? Does she agree that equity and access for all capable of benefiting from it require actions to alleviate student poverty and parental worry and that, in seeking a way forward, no one should be precluded from entering higher education because of their income or background? Does she agree that, while the future is the responsibility of all of us—the Labour party is ready and willing to take up that challenge—the responsibility for the current crisis rests with the actions of the Government?
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in addressing the problems and the challenges of the future, it is necessary to face up to the responsibilities of the present? Will she therefore ask her right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think again about the substantial cuts facing further and higher education, the £550 million that will be removed from the universities' budget in 1998–99, the two-thirds cut in capital spending for further education in the next three years, and the virtual collapse of the Student Loans Company and the loans system?
Will the Secretary of State provide a firm foundation on which Sir Ron Dearing can build? Will she ensure that, when looking to the decades ahead, we do not have to pick up the pieces that exist at the moment? We must agree with the way in which we provide probably the most important aspect of economic and social life for future generations. There must be a genuine consensus on opening up further and higher education, so that every young person—and every mature adult who wishes to seek it—has the opportunity to develop their talents and to flourish for the future.

Mrs. Shephard: I welcome the hon. Member's comments about the committee of inquiry. The future of higher education should be above party interests, as the interests of the nation are tightly interwoven with it. As I said in my statement, the membership of the committee of inquiry and its terms of reference will be the subject of consultation—which we expect to be completed by Easter.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the four key principles that were outlined by Robbins. In the course of our higher education review, it has become clear that there is a need to rebalance the aims and to look at the links between higher education and other sectors of the education service—particularly further education. We must look at the whole context and at the quality of what the system is producing—quality is essential.
The products of our higher education system and the system itself are subject to strong competition from other countries. That is why competitiveness and the contribution that higher education can make to our competitiveness will be important elements in the work of the committee of inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the so-called current crisis. I cannot accept that any sector that receives £7 billion of funding—21 per cent. of the total funding of the education system—is in crisis. We spend more per student in higher education than any other country in the western industrialised world. There has been no collapse of student loans, but the committee of inquiry will examine the context of what is being spent overall and the way the system is funded. It will also examine a number of the broader issues that were outlined by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I hope that Dearing becomes as notable a landmark in our history as Robbins. I hope that the review, while looking forward 20 years, will also examine two problems of the current era: at the bottom, the problems that recruiting pressures have in potentially distorting the market; and, at the top, the funding problems, not so much for buildings—which the private finance initiative resolves—as for equipment that is absolutely critical.

Mrs. Shephard: The committee of inquiry will be considering all aspects of the higher education system, of course, including the way in which the funding methodology adopted by the Higher Education Funding Council affects recruiting methods, and the balance—this is extremely important—between research and teaching in different establishments. As far as equipment is concerned, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of the fund that has been set up between the Office of Science and Technology, the Higher Education Funding Council and the Department to help higher education institutions to cope with the needs of replacement of equipment and infrastructure in the current climate.

Mr. Don Foster: I too welcome the establishment of this inquiry, but does not the Secretary of State agree that some issues need urgent attention and cannot wait for the outcome of the inquiry? In particular, will she be prepared to find ways to reverse the damaging cuts to the capital budgets in further and higher education?
May I also welcome the appointment of Sir Ron Dearing to head the inquiry? Does the Secretary of State not agree, however, that, since the Government have so often had to turn to Sir Ron Dearing in recent years to clear up the mess that they have created, he might be justified in stealing Oliver Hardy's line and saying, "That's another fine mess you've got me into"?

Mrs. Shephard: May I set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest straight away—Sir Ron Dearing is delighted to undertake this task, and is very well qualified because he chaired the Council for National Academic Awards and the Universities Funding Council in England.
I must say something of the same to the hon. Gentleman as I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). We are spending £7 billion of taxpayers' money on the higher education sector. The recurrent spending of universities was maintained in the recent public expenditure survey round.
There have been reductions in capital but, with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, we are setting up a small expert group to help universities make the best they can of the opportunities afforded by the private finance initiative. Many are doing well in that respect already. I have already mentioned the equipment fund set up by the OST, the Higher Education Funding Council and so forth.

Mr. Robert Jackson: I am sure that the appointment of Sir Ron Dearing to head the review will give it a weight that will exceed the weight of the previous review on the same subject, which has just been completed in my right hon. Friend's Department. Will

she recognise, meanwhile, that the financial problems of the universities have been building up for some time, and have reached a critical point after the public expenditure settlement of last November?
Does my right hon. Friend also accept that many Conservative Members would not regard unit spending on the continent as a model for which we should be aiming? Does she recognise that universities have a duty to maintain their standards, that they are independent of the Government, and that they have a right as well as a duty to take appropriate steps to secure the resources they need to underpin the quality of their courses?

Mrs. Shephard: It is always a delight to hear from my hon. Friend on this subject, about which he knows such a great deal. Only part 1 of our higher education review was completed in the Department. The second part, which would have been putting out the findings of part 1 to consultation, will obviously be remitted to the committee of inquiry for it to take forward the questions that resulted from that analysis.
My hon. Friend's other questions underline why it is essential to have the committee of inquiry. It is necessary to consider the balance between research and teaching, and, before one looks at funding and the way in which that is carried out, to study the future size, shape and function of the higher education sector as we approach the 21st century.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Secretary of State also consider the shambles that has been created by the research assessment exercise, with football transfer fees being paid to lure productive lecturers into other institutions? Will she consider the effect of that on the institutions themselves and on the expectations of some of the students who join them?

Mrs. Shephard: I do not accept the hon. Lady's assessment of the research assessment exercise as a shambles. There is the exercise of brisk competition. There should be a thorough and profound examination of the relationship between funding mechanisms and their effect on research and teaching as components of the activities of higher education institutions. I imagine that the hon. Lady would agree with that.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the two periods of greatest expansion of opportunity for higher education have occurred since the war and under Conservative Governments: under the Macmillan Government, and then as a result of the reforms that this Government have introduced? Does she agree that the huge doubling of numbers has created acute financial pressures on higher education? Will she consider instructing Sir Ron Dearing immediately to produce an interim report specifically to examine funding, and in particular the financing of students, at a time when universities and Opposition Members are floating notions of graduate taxes, which some of us do not believe to be the most suitable way forward? Funding is the real issue, rather than the structure and shape of the system, at a time when we need some consolidation.

Mrs. Shephard: The very welcome expansion in higher education that my hon. Friend describes has, in


a way, caused the current emphasis on funding. That is why I think that future size should be one of the first considerations of Sir Ron Dearing and his committee. When my hon. Friend has had a chance to examine the terms of reference, he will find that that necessary emphasis is clearly laid out.
We have reached a time of rapid and welcome expansion—most rapid expansion has occurred under Conservative Governments—and it is time to consider whether we now need consolidation, more expansion, or more emphasis on quality. We need to consider where we are going with higher education, and that will be the committee of inquiry's main purpose. Obviously we are consulting on the terms of reference, but it will be for the committee of inquiry to establish where it wishes to begin.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, which is long overdue, and the fact that it has been supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Does the right hon. Lady think that it is occasionally worth reiterating that higher education is not and has never been free, that it must be paid for, at some point, by someone? I suggest to her—or, through her, to Sir Ron Dearing—that one of the biggest problems in coming to grips with the difficulties and the opportunities of higher education is that, by and large, the overwhelming majority of hon. Members think that higher education is still like it was when they were students.
There is a good case for making it compulsory for hon. Members to attend a seminar, run by Sir Ron, that would give them the facts and figures. Hon. Members do not believe what has happened in higher education in recent years. Unless they accept what has happened, I must emphasise that we shall never reach a solution that will benefit our constituents of all ages. There is no hope for any change or progress for all our constituents without that acceptance.

Mrs. Shephard: I am most intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. It is obvious that education must be paid for, which is why I keep reiterating the figure of £7 billion—21 per cent. of the total education budget. That is worth thinking about for a moment, because that money directly benefits 1.5 million people, the broader economy and research, as compared with the 6 million schoolchildren who benefit from the remainder of the budget. Yes, education must be paid for.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, on higher education issues more than any other, hon. Members' views are coloured by their own generation's experiences. Because the House encompasses hon. Members of many different generations, the generational baggage they bring varies. However, I do not think that I would go as far as the hon. Gentleman and insist on all hon. Members attending a higher education establishment for a refresher course.
It is very difficult to obtain dispassionate views on the state of higher education, and that will be one of the committee of inquiry's starting points.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a timely and appropriate moment for her to take stock of the big

questions, which must include both the finance and the future role of post-compulsory education? I deliberately say "post-compulsory" education, because the old adjective "higher" is no longer the most appropriate word to use. In that context, will my right hon. Friend do everything she can to ensure that Sir Ron Dearing has access to the widest possible range of advice and input, as that will benefit the result of his findings?

Mrs. Shephard: I agree that we need to ensure that the best possible range of information and advice is given to the committee of inquiry. As I said, we shall consult on its membership, but, knowing Sir Ron Dearing's ways of working, I think that the expertise made available to the committee will go far beyond its immediate members.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I add my welcome to the right hon. Lady's decision to establish the inquiry. I particularly welcome her appointment of Sir Ron Dearing—there is no one wiser or better fitted to undertake the task. I am pleased that the right hon. Lady is asking Sir Ron Dearing to include in his purview further as well as higher education.
Whatever the outcome of the inquiry and the debate on the most appropriate use of the £7 billion of expenditure on higher education, according to the present pattern and plans—under which I understand there is to be a 5.1 per cent. squeeze on unit funding by 1996–97 and a 9.4 per cent. squeeze on overall higher education funding by 1998–99—we are liable to witness some damaging effects on the academic system. Those effects will include unfilled academic posts, libraries and laboratories that are not brought up to date, academic staff who are so overstretched by teaching and administration that they are unable to pursue scholarship, and impoverished students. Will the right hon. Lady do all she can in government to ensure that the squeeze on the academic system is at least relaxed, until we have been given Sir Ron's recommendations and have had time to consider them?

Mrs. Shephard: I have already made it clear that we are working closely with the sector to help it to take advantage of private finance initiatives in respect of capital. We are closely in touch—full stop—with those in the sector on all aspects of their budget and general working. Universities have been efficient in absorbing efficiency savings that we have demanded of them, on which I congratulate them. There is clearly a division between the immediate, with which we are closer in touch, and the bigger and broader questions, on which we hope we shall receive their full co-operation—I have no reason to believe otherwise. The hon. Gentleman, who, after all, was closely involved in abolishing the binary line, will understand that it must be right to look at the issues of consolidation, continued expansion and demand-led expansion, while at the same time considering how they might be financed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: I cannot give a commitment to the House, but I want to try to call every hon. Member who wants to speak, as this is an important statement. There is another statement to follow and hon. Members could help me enormously by making their questions and answers brisk.

Sir David Madel: Will the inquiry have a close look at the relationship between industry and universities, and will it also look at training methods for university lecturers and teachers?

Mrs. Shephard: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. That is very helpful.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It is not the Government's normal approach to set up such inquiries, or, where there are inquiries, to adhere to their recommendations. It is even more unusual for those on our Front Bench to agree. Would it not therefore have been appropriate to have the draft terms of reference, so that we could all see whether the right action was being taken?
Can we be assured that those of us who may have different views on education from those that are normally expressed by the Government have opportunities to present our views on continued education, lifetime education and access to higher education for people with abilities but without formal qualifications?

Mrs. Shephard: The terms of reference have been placed in the Libraries of the two Houses. They will, as I have made clear, be subject to consultation, and the hon. Gentleman's concerns will be part of that.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As the Member who represents the university of Essex, I emphasise the view expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that finance is the crunch issue of Sir Ron Dearing's inquiry. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we want universities to remain non-state, private institutions, and not become entirely beholden to the taxpayer and to the Government?

Mrs. Shephard: I entirely agree that one of the great strengths of our system is the essential independence—both financial and academic—of our higher education institutions. Many of them have done marvellous work in diversifying and in responding to the needs of employers, industry and enterprise, and to the challenge posed by competition overseas. All those questions will be considered by the committee of inquiry, which I am sure will want to consider best practice.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I remind the Secretary of State that it is some nine months, if I might modestly say so, since I published and launched the document "The Case for the University of the Lakes", which was the product of four and a half years' work? Will the inquiry draw upon the application of developments in information technology, and especially the use of an electronic library linked to a multi-campus university, which is essentially the concept behind the university of the Lakes?

Mrs. Shephard: Yes.

Dr. Ian Twinn: I join in the all-party support for my right hon. Friend's statement. Does she agree that the success of the Conservative expansion of higher education has been due to the magnificent response of universities and their staff, and the positive way in

which they have adapted to the challenge of expansion? Will she ensure that quality of staff and students is maintained by considering the way in which universities are funded, so that they get continuity, not Treasury stop-start funding?

Mrs. Shephard: That is an important matter. I pay tribute to the way in which the whole sector has taken advantage of the greater independence given to it by the Government—not to mention the increased funding—and turned itself into a sector of flourishing and diverse institutions. One thing that concerns me is career structure for academic staff, and I hope that the committee of inquiry will consider that.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When does the Secretary of State hope that the inquiry will be completed? Does she realise that, in the interim, she must do far more to raise the morale of today's students and academics than offer them an inquiry?

Mrs. Shephard: I have already described the work that we are doing to cope with the current situation, with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and others. I expect the inquiry to report in early summer 1997.

Mr. David Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend invite Sir Ron to consider whether all courses now offered reach the standards that one would expect of a university course, and consider the approaches to university teaching that, in its experience, produce the best results and the highest quality?

Mrs. Shephard: I hope that the assurance of quality will be at the heart of the work of the committee of inquiry.

Mr. Max Madden: As the Dearing inquiry will not report for a long time, will the Secretary of State urgently look into the hardship that is being caused to students with disabilities, including blind students, who now have to pay VAT on the information technology that they require for their studies? That seems to be an unfair imposition on students who used to be exempt from VAT on such purchases. I hope that the Secretary of State can intervene quickly, to ensure that that hardship is not allowed to continue.

Mrs. Shephard: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in such matters, and, if he will send me details of those cases, we shall look at them urgently.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the inquiry will focus very much on the way in which education can improve the United Kingdom's competitive position in the world? In that regard, will she also say whether the inquiry will properly consider the way in which distance learning techniques—using the information super-highway and the Internet—may be enhanced so that people may undertake higher education in their own homes?

Mrs. Shephard: We felt it necessary to establish the committee of inquiry partly because of those changes in emphasis and in circumstances. If my hon. Friend looks


closely at the terms of reference, which have been placed in the Library, he will see that both those aims are laid out very clearly.

Mr. William O'Brien: Before Sir Ron Dearing reports to the House, will the Secretary of State examine the education situation in the Wakefield area in my constituency, and the distribution of part of the £7 billion to further and higher education in that area? My constituents wish to extend their education, but they are unable to do so because of the current economic situation. That fact is borne out by the training and enterprise council, which has revealed that only 25 per cent. of local people are properly trained or receive adequate levels of training and education.

Mrs. Shephard: Obviously, people have a wide range of opportunities—although I cannot speak in detail about the hon. Gentleman's constituency—offered through training and enterprise councils, further education, linked courses with higher education and so on. I wish that I were able to comment in detail on the cases that are worrying the hon. Gentleman. If he will provide those details, I shall try to help. However, I hope that his constituents are taking advantage of existing mechanisms, such as career development loans and non-mandatory grants. I shall be glad to hear from him about the matter.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that having one in three people in higher education is a superb achievement? However, does she not also agree that too many universities have too many courses which do not lead graduates into work? One of the great problems of higher education throughout history is that courses are not market led—despite the best efforts of the inspectorate, of which my right hon. Friend was a distinguished member, to ensure that courses would lead students into work. Does she believe that the Dearing committee should consider that issue?

Mrs. Shephard: The expansion of higher education-which has meant that nearly one in three people are now in higher education, compared with one in eight in 1979–80—is a major achievement. Some 15 per cent. of university courses now lead to vocational qualifications. It is important that young people leaving higher education should be employable, although they may require further vocational training in order to get a job.
It is absolutely clear that young people must do well in education and attain high-quality qualifications. Their education must equip them to express themselves well, to be members of teams, to be thoroughly literate and

numerate—in short, to be employable. The question of employability and the contribution that higher education makes to the broader economy will be at the heart of the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Although the committee will not report until summer next year, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that that in no way absolves her from her responsibility of ensuring that the immediate needs of higher education are fully met? This year's budgetary settlement—in contrast to the position last year—must recognise that fact.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, although the siren voices on her side of the House and perhaps from parts of the education sector are saying that consolidation must be the lodestar for the committee, Labour Members and others in many parts of the country will be emphasising Robbins' initial principle: higher education courses should be available to all those who are qualified to undertake them and who are able to benefit from them? As that number will inevitably increase as our schools produce more qualified students, we will expect the committee to consider expanding higher education.

Mrs. Shephard: The Robbins initial conclusion was that higher education should principally concern itself with instruction in employment skills, and that only after that should it promote the general powers of the mind, the advancement of learning and the transmission of a common culture and common standards in citizenship.
I have explained the ways in which we keep in close touch with the sector about matters immediately of the moment, but I repeat that, when considering expansion, consolidation or future role, one must set all those in the context of what the needs of the economy will be, the future of the country, and the contribution that higher education can make to meeting those needs. It is a broader issue, which affects the issues that immediately confront us this year, and that will be the focus of the committee of inquiry.

Mr. John Marshall: Will Sir Ron Dearing consider the success of Buckingham university in managing to grant degrees after only two years of study—degrees that are internationally recognised as very satisfactory? Will the Dearing committee also consider the different staff-student ratios that apply in the old polytechnics and the long-standing universities? Does not the success of the polytechnics suggest that there may be slack in staff-student ratios at universities?

Mrs. Shephard: I expect the committee of inquiry to consider length of courses and good practice throughout all institutions.

Oil Tanker (Milford Haven)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): With permission, I wish to make a statement about the continuing operation to salvage the oil tanker Sea Empress.
At 8 pm on Thursday 15 February 1996, the Sea Empress ran aground at the entrance to Milford Haven on her passage inward to port. She began to spill oil shortly afterwards. The vessel, built in 1993, is Liberian flagged and managed by a British company. At the time of the incident, she was carrying about 131,000 tonnes of light crude oil. As a result of the initial grounding, about 2,000 tonnes of crude oil were spilt. That formed an oil slick, causing pollution along a stretch of coastline near the entrance to and in Milford Haven.
The Marine Pollution Control Unit, part of the Coastguard Agency in the Department of Transport, quickly implemented the agreed national contingency plan for oil spill response. A joint response centre was established with Dyfed county council and other interested parties, including environmental groups. The shipowner quickly reached agreement with a salvage company to undertake the necessary salvage operations.
The immediate problem was that the vessel had listed and was too deep in the water to be brought into the shelter of Milford Haven for the removal of the crude oil remaining on board. Therefore, attention was concentrated on stabilising the vessel as a prelude to salvage and on preventing a further escape of oil.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I visited the site on Friday, and my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping inspected salvage and recovery operations by helicopter on Saturday 17 February. On Saturday evening, in worsening weather, the vessel broke loose from salvage tugs and grounded outside the main channel into the haven.
The current position is that the Sea Empress continues to be held by two tugs in the entrance to Milford Haven. Salvors are back on board undertaking preparatory work to allow for a transfer of oil to a smaller tanker. Throughout this morning, oil leaked from the vessel, much more slowly than yesterday, but at low water she appeared to touch bottom and a quantity of oil escaped from the starboard side tanks as the sea level dropped. The oil was quickly sprayed with dispersant by MPCU aircraft. Undoubtedly, most of the Sea Empress's cargo is still on board. The prevention of further pollution depends crucially on the success of the salvage operations.
Beach-cleaning operations are continuing at three main sites and more than 150 people are involved. Within the Haven, two booms have been rigged to protect sensitive sites and more will be put out today if conditions permit. Three small specialist craft are recovering oil from the sea surface in the Haven.
During the incident, oil was sprayed with dispersant from aircraft under conditions agreed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
It is too soon to assess the likely impact of the pollution caused by the incident, but the House will appreciate the great environmental sensitivity of the area. The coastline falls within the Pembrokeshire coast national park, reflecting its great natural beauty. The area is of

importance to wildlife, particularly birds. Accordingly, the local authorities, the Countryside Council for Wales and other environmental and welfare interests such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds are playing their full part at the joint response centre. Every action is being taken to help protect those areas and the wildlife from contamination.
There is a system in place under international treaty to provide compensation in such incidents—first, from the shipowner's insurer and secondly, if that is not sufficient, from the international oil pollution compensation fund. The independent marine accident investigation branch, which will report directly to me, has initiated an investigation into the causes of the accident and will provide a full report. As usual, that report will be published. At this stage, it would be unwise to speculate on the outcome of the investigation.
The Government's policy is first and foremost to seek to prevent incidents of this type through improvements in vessel safety. In that context, we are implementing the vast majority of the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas". However, carriage by sea will always have some element of risk. Where an incident does occur, we are determined to react swiftly, thus effectively to reduce the pollution or damage caused.
In this instance, despite severe weather, the practised implementation of our national contingency plan should ensure that the situation will be brought under control. The House will recognise that the weather will remain the crucial factor in making progress. The immediate priority is to anchor the ship in position, so that we do not have to continue to rely on tugs alone. When the weather abates, we shall start to lighten the vessel, so that she can be moved to a less-exposed anchorage. The operation will take time and needs to be done carefully and safely. Every effort will be made to prevent any further release of oil.
I am sure that the House will join me in recognising the extremely hard work put in by all who have helped to mitigate the effects of this regrettable incident. Work will continue to be done to stabilise the vessel, minimise further release of oil and deal with oil that has come ashore. The House will recognise the hazardous nature of that work in an exposed location, and it will wish to pay particular tribute to those who have returned to the ship as part of the salvage operation. We wish them every success in a satisfactory conclusion to a distressing incident.

Ms Clare Short: I join the Secretary of State and the rest of the House in sending our best wishes to the salvage team working on the Sea Empress, with our hopes that it manages to transfer enough oil from the vessel to allow her to be refloated and moved without a major accident or large-scale oil leak, which would do terrible damage to the beauty of the Pembrokeshire coastline and the wildlife in the surrounding sea.
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is most disappointing—following the 1993 Braer disaster, the fine work undertaken by Lord Donaldson's inquiry and the acceptance of most of his recommendations—that we should continue to suffer the danger of major spillages from oil tankers in areas of great natural beauty?


Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that—as Lloyd's List International claimed on Saturday 17 February—the Sea Empress is the 12th tanker to have grounded in United Kingdom waters since early 1993? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of suspicions in the industry that masters have failed to disclose a number of other incidents in which damage was avoided?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is increasing concern that Milford Haven has become accident prone, that this is the second reported incident in the estuary in the past four months and that—again according to Lloyd's List International—there are fears that other close shaves at Milford Haven have been covered up? In those circumstances, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the port authority's inquiry into Milford Haven should be extended, to establish whether commercial considerations are outweighing safety and environmental considerations?
Does the Secretary of State accept that there are four possible causes of the Sea Empress disaster—pilot error, engine or steering problems, and crew error? Given that the Sea Empress is only three years old and was involved in an incident in Sullom Voe in 1994, is the Minister aware that many suspect that the problem with that vessel and other cheap designs lies in the lack of engine power and back-up for the steering system? May I suggest that it is essential that those matters are properly and independently investigated? Will he give urgent consideration to excluding all ships without adequate design protection against spillages—either double hulling or mid-deck design—from all environmentally sensitive waters?
Given the importance of the issue, will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision today? An internal inquiry by his own marine accident investigation branch is inadequate, given the serious questions that have been raised. Will he instead recall Lord Donaldson and ask him to review the problems that remain following the implementation of the previous report?
Last but not least, will the Secretary of State admit that, as the Merchant Navy officers union said, the Government have allowed increasing amounts of
sub-standard flag of convenience shipping to take trade from Britain while presiding over the demise of the British fleet."?
Will he immediately set up a commission—and chair it himself—with the remit to rebuild a strong British fleet with high standards of safety and respect for the protection of the environment?

Sir George Young: I am grateful for the comments that the hon. Lady made at the beginning of her remarks, and I endorse them. The Donaldson report made 103 recommendations. The Government accepted 86 and 13 are under further consideration. Half of those that we accepted have been implemented, so we have made good progress in taking forward the wide-ranging report that Lord Donaldson initiated. The hon. Lady suggested that unreported incidents have taken place, and I shall make inquires to see whether there is substance in that suggestion. As for her speculation as to the causes of the incident, it makes sense to await the outcome of the MAIB investigation. Although the MAIB reports to me, it is independent and its credibility and integrity are widely recognised in the marine world.
I was interested to read what Lord Donaldson said about double hulls and their merits in paragraph 23.14 of his report:
We have some doubts on the merits of double hulls and consider that there is scope for discussion. We accept the line that IMO has taken in promoting double hulled tankers or equivalents but believe that there is a need for further research.
One needs to be cautious about the suggestions in the press that it would make sense to exclude single-hulled vessels from the United Kingdom.
In regard to the hon. Lady's other suggestions, the priority of the House is to initiate an authoritative, speedy inquiry to find out what went wrong and then to take action on that. Some of the alternative suggestions, such as public inquiries, would inevitably take longer and might deny us the information that we need urgently if we are to get to the bottom of the matter.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am sure that all hon. Members will join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the speed, professionalism and efficiency of the emergency services, and we wish them well. As the Secretary of State clearly appreciates, oil tankers tend to operate in coastal waters that are peculiarly environmentally vulnerable and ecologically sensitive. Is it not time, therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman to consider what steps the United Kingdom can take to make progress on the issues on which he has just spoken?
It is some time since the Donaldson report examined the case for double hulls. Is there not a case for a British initiative on the issue, to prevent the use of vessels that are clearly not up to the required standards in our very vulnerable waters?

Sir George Young: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, there is on-going work within the International Maritime Organisation on double hulls. The present position is that single-hulled ships have progressively to be phased out, the date varying according to particular countries, and double-hulled ships or those of equivalent safety introduced. That is the right way forward. Although at the end of the day the United Kingdom will retain the right to take unilateral action, I am sure that the House will agree that, where possible, it makes sense to make progress on an international basis, given the nature of the shipping trade.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I, too, should like to send my best wishes to my constituents, many of whom are involved in the clean-up and the salvage operation. I have been closely involved since late on Thursday night, when the vessel first went aground.
I am grateful that the Secretary of State took the trouble to come down and look at the operation, but I must tell him that an MAIB investigation is far too restrictive. This is the second time in four months that a large crude carrier has run aground at the entrance to Milford Haven. The indications are that there were steering and—possibly—propulsion problems connected with both incidents. Both were modern vessels; had they been motor cars they would not even have qualified for MOTs yet.
I believe that there is something wrong with the minimum standards that have been set; only a public inquiry can deal with such wider issues. We also need to sort out, once and for all, the issues of double-hull and


mid-deck design. I appreciate what Lord Donaldson said, but the point is that he did not argue in favour of single hulls.
The Secretary of State did not tell us that the IMO has recommended that it will be 25 to 30 years before all the single hulls have been phased out. That means that we will be about 80 before the last single hulls disappear. If the Secretary of State is willing to accept that, I am not.
I believe that there are sufficient grounds for a public inquiry, to examine some of the issues specifically related to Milford Haven. Everyone accepts that it is probably the most environmentally sensitive area in the United Kingdom, and professionals working at Milford Haven, or who have retired from it, have flagged up serious problems.
The right hon. Gentleman must ask the port authority how on earth a modern port can function without radar cover at its entrance. That cover has been out of action for about six months, which shows that something is seriously wrong with the whole operation at Milford Haven. I urge the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry.

Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman's last point was a contributory factor to the incident, I would expect the MAIB to reflect on that while compiling its report. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman is reported as saying in The Guardian today—he said that he had no criticism to make of the salvage efforts. He speaks with feeling about a matter of deep concern to his constituency.
The MAIB inquiry will look at allegations about power and steering. I hope that the report on the earlier incident will be available shortly, when it will be published.
The hon. Gentleman pressed me again to hold a public inquiry. The MAIB is usually entrusted with the investigation of sea accidents, however serious. There has been no formal public inquiry into a major shipping accident since the formation of the MAIB in 1989. Indeed, there has been no formal public inquiry into an air accident since 1973. My view is that MAIB and air accident investigation branch procedures have so far commanded wide public acceptance.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: My constituents in north Pembrokeshire are worried about the environmental impact of this incident. I support the points made by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger).
It is inevitable that this crisis will also concentrate people's minds on the proposals to burn orimulsion at Pembroke power station. Is the Secretary of State aware of the great concern in the area about the effects of burning orimulsion? Does not this incident revive fears about the transportation of orimulsion into the Haven, especially as that will involve significantly increased quantities?
While pursuing the question of the public inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman press his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to hold a public inquiry into the application to burn orimulsion, which is currently under consideration?

Sir George Young: The plans for an orimulsion jetty are being considered by a number of regulators, including

the Department, and no decisions have yet been reached. There are a range of objections to the proposals, including concerns about new dangers to navigation in the Haven.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I represent an adjacent constituency, that of Carmarthen, and I well remember, when Milford Haven was developed, the serious concern throughout Dyfed that it was at the heart of the Pembrokeshire coast national park. Regular assurances were given that the highest standards would be imposed and maintained, and that was the case in the 1960s and 1970s. Can the Secretary of State explain to me and to the people of Wales why incidents now happen regularly? We have heard today about the incident four months ago and about the Braer incident in the Shetlands. Why is there now such a high accident rate in oil transportation?

Sir George Young: The objective of the two inquiries, into the earlier incident involving the Borga and into the Sea Empress, is to find out why there are incidents and to take appropriate action. My Department's priority is to prevent such incidents taking place, and that is why we set up the MAIB inquiries, which are published, and take urgent action to implement them.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If the Secretary of State wishes to demonstrate good will, he should take some vigorous action on those ships, which are now plying British waters, that are not suitable. However good the MAIB investigation of the Sea Empress accident is, if the Secretary of State will not take immediate action against sub-standard, non-British ships carrying oil in British waters, that is a dereliction of his duty and everyone's time is being wasted. It is vital that the evidence on double hulls, given to the Select Committee, is studied by the Secretary of State now and that he follows up the evidence and the conclusions of Lord Donaldson as quickly as possible.

Sir George Young: As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the Government take tough action against sub-standard vessels. We published lists of vessels that had been detained following Lord Donaldson's report. Safety at sea is a matter that I take very seriously. I am anxious to make progress as fast as possible on the Donaldson report and related recommendations.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does not the Secretary of State realise the sense of horror and outrage felt by everyone, at the risk that we permit that billion-dollar industry—the richest, most profitable industry in the world—to run? We allow that industry to cut costs with ramshackle vessels at the expense of the British environment and wildlife. For too long, we have been permissive with the entire maritime industry. Why do we not follow what happened in America after the Exxon Valdez disaster? Action was taken to ensure that the polluter pays more, and that discourages vessels that are sub-standard from visiting America. Is not that the way forward? New standards must be introduced and they must be imposed first on areas such as Milford Haven, which are in special peril.

Sir George Young: It is the case that the polluter pays. The shipping industry pays the premiums for the insurance policies that are validated to pay for the damage caused.
With regard to the quality of vessels, the Sea Empress was built in 1993 and it is important not to prejudge the outcome of the MAIB report. I read the Donaldson report again at the weekend, and Lord Donaldson pointed out that 80 per cent. of accidents are due to human error.

Mr. Tony Banks: I found the Secretary of State's reply very complacent, and his attitude to the accident is thoroughly unsatisfactory, especially in view of what we should have learnt from the Braer incident. The accident involved a ramshackle ship, crewed by Russians and flagged out to Liberia, and we have to rely on a Chinese tug to assist us. What is going on in this country's maritime industry?
The area around Milford Haven is one of the most important sites of scientific interest in the entire world. We should not allow anything other than reinforced, double-hulled ships to go near that area. To allow an oil company to cut corners is absolutely appalling and the Government must take full measures to ensure that the polluter pays for every single expense that is incurred by those who are trying to clear up after the tragedy. Was the captain of the ship tested after it grounded? Will the RSPB and the RSPCA be given financial support for their clear-up? How many birds have been affected? Will the Secretary of State take some direct action instead of being stunningly complacent?

Sir George Young: According to the last figure that I saw, six birds have been killed, but, of course, we must do all that we can to minimise any damage. The insurance company acting for the Sea Empress will compensate for the costs borne by the Government, local authorities or others involved in the clearing-up operation. As for double hulls, the hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said in response to two earlier questions.
As for complacency, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that after the Braer incident, we set up the Donaldson inquiry. The subsequent report made 103 recommendations, 86 of which were accepted. Half were implemented, and the rest are being pursued. I hope that the fact that my Department gave the House a statement outlining the action that we were taking, and the responses

that I have outlined, will convince the hon. Gentleman that we are not complacent. We take the matter seriously, and we are determined to learn the lessons and then implement the recommendations.

Mr. Graham Allen: One of the lessons that the Secretary of State may wish to learn is that the arrangements are policed by the Coastguard and Marine Safety Agencies. Will he now undertake not to cut further the numbers in those agencies, so that the arrangements are patrolled and enforced effectively? Will he also undertake to ensure that the penalties for those who damage the environment—a maximum fine of £250,000, but no minimum—are enforced ruthlessly? At present, many shipowners are bearing the penalties as a cost of doing business. The right hon. Gentleman needs to get tough, so that we do not see any more such incidents.

Sir George Young: Safety is and will remain paramount in my Department. Efficiency savings in the two marine agencies and, indeed, in the MAIB, have not and will not be made at the expense of safety.

Scott Report

Mr. Jim Cousins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As one who was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry at the time of the Iraqi supergun affair, I have written to you to seek your guidance on what I consider to be important issues for the House, arising from the Scott report and the evidence given to the inquiry. Are you in a position to give me that guidance?

Madam Speaker: No, I am not. I received the hon. Gentleman's letter about an hour before I arrived in the Chair, so I am not in a position to reply. I shall, however, let the hon. Gentleman have a written reply as soon as I can. I am aware of the points that he has made in his letter. If he wishes to draw my attention to a possible breach of privilege, he must make specific complaints in writing, and I shall consider whether to give precedence to his complaints in the usual manner. However, I ask him to await the response to his letter, which I shall see that he receives as soon as possible.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 5

VIDEO RECORDING

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall—
(a) make a code of practice in connection with the silent video recording of interviews to which this section applies; and
(b) make an order requiring the silent video recording of interviews to which this section applies in accordance with the code as it has effect for the time being.

(2) This section applies to interviews held by police officers of persons detained under section 14(1)(a) or (b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (arrest and detention of suspected persons).

(3) In this section "police officer" means a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.'.—[Sir John Wheeler.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 6—Codes of practice: supplementary.
Government amendments Nos. 21 and 22.

Sir John Wheeler: The new clauses and amendments give effect to the announcement, made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in the House on 9 January, that he would introduce a system for the silent video recording of all interviews taking place in holding centres, and also, for consultation, a code of practice for the purpose.
The case for introducing either video or audio recording of interviews with terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland has been mooted for some time. The Royal Ulster Constabulary has advised against the idea, because it fears that suspects would be unwilling to assist the police if they knew that their co-operation was being recorded. It had been hoped that a statutory provision could be introduced that would prevent disclosure of the tapes either by or to those who might have sinister motives for acquiring them; however, after extensive discussions with the police and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, it became clear that it would not be possible to devise a satisfactory safeguard of that kind. For that reason, it was agreed that it would not be possible to introduce audio recording of interviews, but that silent video recording could be introduced without any statutory safeguards and with the RUC's agreement. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced his intention to do so on Second Reading.
Audio recording would provide the same protection as silent video recording. A further benefit would be that it would quickly resolve problems relating to admissibility

of evidence. There are many problems, however. First, there are the concerns of the RUC. As Mr. Rowe said in his most recent review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991:
the RUC objection to taping is that the suspect will not say anything, and will be worried that his organisation will learn what he has said".
The main problem, however, is one of disclosure. There are significant problems in devising a satisfactory scheme that will protect the release or disclosure of tapes. For example, the accused's lawyers would have the right to listen to the whole tape, and, once a copy had passed out of police hands, it would be impossible to ensure that it did not fall into the wrong hands and put lives at risk. Editing a tape is not the answer, for reasons that were given in detail in Lord Colville's 1990 report. I will spare the House the detail of that report, as the facts are on record.
I echo the sentiments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when I say that the Government hope to see the end of holding centres soon. I wish that I could be sure that that would happen, in the current circumstances. The Government look forward to a time when all suspects will be interviewed under the normal criminal procedures. I say that despite the Provisional IRA's announcement of 9 February—although I acknowledge that, in the light of the announcement and the events that have followed, that time may not come quite as soon as we might have hoped.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that anyone arrested in this country will be interviewed in the normal course of events?

Sir John Wheeler: Yes, I can confirm that, but the hon. Gentleman and, I think, the House will know that—unfortunately—very different circumstances now prevail in Northern Ireland. Following the ending of the Provisional IRA's ceasefire, people's lives are once more seriously at risk.
The holding centre regime has features that are stricter than the corresponding regime under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—a point that the hon. Gentleman may also wish to acknowledge. For the time being, however, in the prevailing circumstances in Northern Ireland, those features—including the additional measures—are very necessary. The move to introduce silent video recording will add to the range of safeguards that already exist in holding centres, and will increase public confidence in the regime.
Let me now touch on the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Murray case. Murray was arrested on 7 January 1990, and taken to a police holding centre. The police denied him access to his legal adviser for the first 48 hours of his detention, under powers in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987. He remained silent both before and after seeing his solicitor; he also declined to give evidence at his trial.
In Murray's case, the European Court of Human Rights held that the European convention had been violated because Murray had been denied access to a solicitor at a point when inferences might have been drawn from his silence. The Government find that a disappointing conclusion, especially as the Court concluded, as we had argued strongly, that the proceedings against Murray were not unfair.
We are studying the Court's judgment in detail. Its full implications will take some time to assess. We need to consider carefully what changes in the law or practice may be necessary to ensure compliance with the convention. The House will also understand that we wish to avoid any change, especially in the present circumstances in Northern Ireland, that would risk impairing the operational effectiveness of the police in dealing with terrorism. We shall consider quickly what is the best way forward. That is obviously a matter of significance in the context of the present Bill. We aim to announce our conclusions as soon as possible and will try to do so when the Bill is in another place. I must make it clear to the House that it is a complex matter, which has a wide-ranging application within the United Kingdom.
I should draw the attention of the House to a point of broader significance on the Court's decision: that the Court rejected any suggestion that the law on the right to silence had by itself prejudiced Murray's right under the convention. It endorsed the view of the European Commission of Human Rights, in its earlier decision, that the legislation on silence constituted
a formalised system which aims at allowing common-sense implications to play a formal part in the assessment of evidence".
It concluded that the drawing of inferences had neither infringed the presumption of innocence nor shifted the burden of proof from prosecution to defence.
The view of the Court and of the Commission, that the law on inferences from silence is a matter of common sense, is exactly right. The law does not harm the innocent. It is right in principle and it is an important weapon in the army of measures to deal with serious crime. The Court's confirmation that the legislation on the right of silence had not breached the convention is welcome. The Court decided, as the Government had argued, that there should be no award of compensation, and reduced costs against the Government from the £57,000 that the applicant had claimed to £15,000, recognising that only one part of the claim had succeeded.
I commend to the House these new clauses, which will provide for the introduction of silent video recording. Any further adjustments necessary to the law on the treatment of persons in police custody under terrorism provisions as a result of further deliberation on the matters that I have described will be taken forward in another place.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I shall deal briefly with the Murray case, to which the Minister referred, although, as the Minister knows, it is mentioned in one of our amendments.
We welcome the fact that the Government are considering urgently what measures might be necessary to bring the law and practice into line with the requirements of the convention as set down by the European Court. I understand from that that they recognise that the European Court has said that there is a disparity between our present law and the practices of the European Court, and that there needs to be some movement on that matter. I shall come back to that later.
We welcome the move, although it is too small, to silent video recording at holding centres. We believe that it is a valuable situation, in which human rights protection and effective prosecution can go together. They are not in

conflict. As the Minister knows, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights—his appointed body—in Northern Ireland has pressed for silent video recording since 1984, because there it is of huge value where the suspect is unable to deny the validity of a statement that has been recorded.
In Committee, reference was made to the Ballymurphy case, which I think provided the most powerful case for audio recording. Of that case, Mr. Justice Kerr, who, as hon. Members will be aware, has been appointed with the noble Lord Lloyd to head the review into the workings of the anti-terrorist legislation, said:
The trial started in August 1993 and did not end until December 1994.
He said that a huge amount of time on that case was taken up with what are referred to as voir dire proceedings, and that, if audio recording had been available, the trial
could have been completed comfortably within a few weeks instead of the sixteen months that it occupied.
If that case had not been in court, and if he had been available, Mr. Justice Kerr could have heard it and many other cases in that period. That is the opinion not only of Mr. Justice Kerr but of many other members of the judiciary. It is the opinion not just of SACHR but of John Rowe, the Government's reviewer of the legislation, who in February 1995, with regard to audio recording—not silent video recording—said
That is the very least that should be provided. If there is a video recording as well, so much the better.
That comes from a man who is the essence of caution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said earlier, all that we ask is that the Northern Irish experience is brought into line with what occurs in England and Wales.
It is our belief that Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and others have examined very carefully disclosability, which is at the essence of the Royal Ulster Constabulary's concern. There are, obviously, security risks, but we must face the fact that, by definition, police stations are secure establishments. Their whole raison d'être is to be secure. The main threat to the security of police stations is always through human beings rather than machinery. If we were to proceed on the assumption that police stations are not secure, where would we go with regard to any prosecution of the law? Sir Louis Blom-Cooper came forward with what he described as
a closely prescribed procedure for the disclosure of tape recording only to those detainees who are charged with terrorist offences and who at trial challenge the admissibility of a statement.
The suspect who has been recorded can decide the extent to which the interview is made more generally available. Clearly, if the suspect is concerned about the risk to himself, he will not take a step that makes that video or audio recording more generally available.
I have a number of questions for the Minister about the new clauses. My first, simple question is whether it is his intention that all the holding centres should, as quickly as possible, install silent video recording. Secondly, what time scale is the Minister setting for the installation of silent video recording? My third question, which I raised in Committee, has not been taken account of in the drafting of the new clause; perhaps the Minister can help. Would it be possible for the new clause to be worded in such a way, if the holding centres unfortunately continue, as to allow the easy extension from silent video recording


to audio recording and full video recording without the need for primary legislation? As I read the new clause, it is strictly limited to silent video recording and it would not be possible to change that without primary legislation.
5 pm
My next questions concern the Minister's thoughts on the technical issues involved. Again, we referred to those issues in Committee. Silent video recording has its limits; how useful it is depends on how it is used. If a video camera is installed in the ceiling and simply looks down on the police officer and the suspect, it will reveal, for example—I put it gently—that the people do not get too close to each other. It will not reveal very much about body language and it will reveal little about gestures. It will not allow lip-reading, as ground-level cameras would. How useful the device is will very much depend on the technical issues.
As the Minister knows, closed circuit television recording of interviews exists, but it has proved not to be valuable as it seems not to be taken note of by the police officers who watch the interviews taking place. How useful the extension to silent video recording will be very much depends on the way in which the technical issues about the deployment of video cameras are dealt with. I invite the Minister to reply to those points.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: What a wonderful world it would be if everything was perfect. Unfortunately, the past few hours have shown us that we live in a far from perfect world. We live in a world where we are bound, at times, to travel along a route that we know, in our heart of hearts, is full of pitfalls. However, if we fail to travel along that route, we run the risk of being labelled dogs of war. That is what we have experienced in Northern Ireland and throughout the kingdom over the past 17 months.
The Prime Minister and others were persuaded of a certain hypothesis—a hypothesis that IRA-Sinn Fein wished to move from a mode of violence to a mode of democracy. If the Prime Minister and the Government had not explored that hypothesis, there would have been cries that there on the Government Benches were the dogs of war.
When we consider the Bill, we must bear in mind the reality and the lessons of the past 18 months. The facts are that IRA-Sinn Fein is an organisation that is well tutored in every aspect of guerilla warfare and in every aspect of terrorism. To introduce the video recording of interviews with terrorists at this time is to lessen the benefit that those interviews will have in terms of the police bringing people to justice and garnering high-grade intelligence which is necessary to protect our society.
I assure the House that the IRA is not composed of hawks and doves. It is not composed of those who wish to pursue a course of violence and those who are against such a course. It is composed of those who carry out ruthless killings and those who are efficient as members of a propaganda corps in confusing international opinion and, I am sad to say, opinion at home about the extent and brutality of the horrors.
Unfortunately, there are elements within the press and media who have believed for years that Gerry Adams will lead the IRA out of violence and into the democratic mode. That is not so. The same people have persuaded

the Government, through their advisers, that it will be a good thing to have video recordings in the holding centres. That will not be a good thing.
The House needs to understand how terrorists behave when they are taken into the holding centres. They are not innocent people who are brought in off the streets for no good reason. The people who are brought to the holding centres are, by and large, those who are involved in terrorism. It is not always possible to get the evidence of that involvement so that they can be brought through the courts and convicted. However, I know of few people in recent times—I am talking about the past decade—who have been brought into holding centres who have been totally innocent of involvement in terrorist activity.
When those people come into the holding centres, they are already conditioned about how they should behave when questioned by detectives. They indulge in the most bizarre activities. Those activities may be anything from concentrating on the cracks in the wall, counting them and double-checking again, again and again, to stripping off their clothes entirely and lying naked on the floor of the room in which they are being questioned. That is done to distract and embarrass those who have the responsibility for finding out what is happening among the terrorist gangs who have roamed not only Northern Ireland but Great Britain over the past 25 years.
If we now introduce video cameras, they will be used in exactly the same way to embarrass and distract the officers who are responsible for ensuring that the people who threaten our society are removed from the streets.
In the past 10 months, the Chief Constable of the RUC has decided that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 should not be used in the arrest and holding of suspected terrorists and has required policemen to use the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. That has left us with a huge gap in the intelligence that is available to the police and, to a large extent, is responsible for the fact that there have now been two explosions and other attempted explosions for which no one has been made accountable.
Two years ago, the level of intelligence was so high that we could have introduced internment—I would have had no qualms about that—to take out those who command and control the IRA throughout the whole of this kingdom. We can no longer do that, as there is a gap in the intelligence. We have been naive in believing that the terrorists were somehow sincere in their desire to move towards the democratic process.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The hon. Gentleman referred at one stage to video recording, the subject of the new clause. How will the video recording of interviews embarrass those who carry out the interviews if they have acted according to all regulations and procedures?

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman must not be as familiar as I thought with the part of the kingdom from which I come. As soon as such video recordings are made available, every sharp lawyer in the country will want to see them to discover not so much the attitude of the policeman who is behaving properly, but the terrorist suspect who has been brought in for questioning. Therein lies the meat of the matter.

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question, and I shall explain my reply. I would not wish him to leave here in ignorance. When a suspect is taken in for questioning, he will be conditioned, as I have explained—

Mr. David Trimble: He or she.

Mr. Maginnis: He or she will have been conditioned in the past to adopt a certain pose or mode of behaviour. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said that a camera could be mounted in the ceiling. If a camera were to be mounted there, I imagine that a suspect would be told to look at it in a fixed manner without speaking. Any evidence that he has given in response to police questions will be deemed to be an offence against the IRA code, and if he is released, he will be punished for so doing. If he is brought to court and acquitted, he will also be punished for so doing.
5.15 pm
The camera may motivate a person who is peripherally involved—let us leave the hardest of the hard men for the time being. A person who is peripherally involved and is brought in for questioning may, in the interests of his own future or that of his family, wish to co-operate with the police. But he will be prevented from doing so because he knows that his every move will be recorded and that the recording can be asked for. If he is never brought before court and is released from custody, he could be forced to make allegations of ill-treatment. Cases will then be brought against the authorities, and the recording will be sought to see whether he infringed the IRA code. That is the danger of introducing video recordings.
Such a move would be the thin end of the wedge. The next question—as was articulated by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie—would be, "How quickly can we move to have audio recordings added to video recordings?"

Rev. Ian Paisley: When accusations are made about what went on in an interview room, there is no real way for a police officer to refute them. If such recordings were available, would not they give the police an opportunity to say, "That man was never attacked or struck, and he did not have his head banged on the wall"? That argument has been put to me forcefully by police officers, who have said that they would rather have an opportunity to refute such allegations.

Mr. Maginnis: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but he is harking back to a time some years ago, before the introduction of the regular medical checks that are available to suspects when they arrive at the police station and after every session of interview. A suspect could remove his clothes, rush blindly at the wall and injure himself. If that occurred, any interviewing officer should immediately bring the interviewing session to a close and should ensure that the matter is properly recorded not only by himself, but by those who were observing the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Mallon: The video?

Mr. Maginnis: Those who were observing the closed circuit television—not the video, I assure the

hon. Gentleman. The officer would have an opportunity to call in a doctor immediately to ensure that a proper record of the self-inflicted injury was made. We could deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in that way.
The difficulty for Special Branch is that it must do more than try to bring terrorists to justice. It must also try to build up a picture of the overall activity and involvement of individuals in terrorism to a level that gives us high-grade intelligence, and we will sacrifice that if we introduce video recordings.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I refer to the man who may strip off his clothes and bang his head against a wall while being interrogated. In such a case, the interviewing officer should stop the questioning, go to those looking on and say what has happened. When such a case is revealed to the public, the argument always is that the police made the final decision. Surely if one had it on video that the man stripped off his clothes and banged his head against the wall, one would have concrete evidence that it had nothing to do with the police. We are all aware that every time these things happen, the police are the scapegoat and people say, "That is just another policeman packing up his felon."

Mr. Maginnis: I hear what the hon. Member for North Antrim says. The policemen whom I know have never been afraid to put themselves between the terrorists—and all the machinations of the terrorists—and the good of society. It should be left to the discretion of our police service. I know that the greater number of police would wish for the ability to glean high-grade intelligence rather than seek their own security. The argument exists, which is why we are having this debate today and why it has taken the Government so long to capitulate on the question of video recordings.
This issue relates to the long-term good of society. Today we have seen our very efficient police service virtually neutered in the collection and collation of intelligence, because this is not a nice thing to do. Well, what the terrorists have done to society for the past 25 years is not very nice; and what they have done over the past few weeks is not very nice.
Gerry Adams is telling us that he is "holding out his hand to John Major" and that he would like to be friendly. However, at the same time, he is telling us that he will not condemn the acts of terrorism that have occurred, and he is asking gullible people not to deliver the terrorists to the due process of law. With that sort of influence pervading part of our society, why on earth should we put restrictions on ourselves in relation to the video recording amendment?

Rev. William McCrea: We are dealing with a serious matter. We are considering the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill at a time when the IRA has resumed its onslaught on the mainland. We have had a continuing threat to the people of Northern Ireland—the members of the security forces, the elected Members of this House and society in general. As was suggested in Committee, it would be folly to dismantle this legislation—it ought not to have been considered—when there is such a terrorist threat to the whole of the United Kingdom. I believe that we have been proved right: the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland need the legislation that we are debating at the moment.
The solemn responsibility of Her Majesty's Government—indeed, their primary duty—is to defend the citizens of the United Kingdom. This legislation is not a threat to innocent, decent and law-abiding citizens. However, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we ought to have legislation that is a threat to those who endeavour to make our community a slaughterhouse—as we have seen in recent days on the mainland.
On behalf of my colleagues, I express our sympathy to the innocent people who have lost their lives since the renewal of the IRA's campaign of murder and destruction. We should also think of those who are in hospital because, while they may still be alive, they will carry the scars of these dastardly deeds upon their bodies for the rest of their days. We should not forget the families of those who are left with the scars—no one but those who have been through such an ordeal will understand how they feel.
We are not dealing with mindless villains; we are dealing with cold-blooded terrorists. We are in an emergency situation—this is emergency legislation. I think that every hon. Member would have been delighted if the Minister had been able to say with hand on heart that the United Kingdom and every part of it is at peace—that there is no more war, slaughter, threat or danger to the citizens of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately and sadly, that is not reality.
The amendment relates to video recording. I understand some of the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). However, it is important that we do nothing that will damage gaining the high-grade intelligence that has been mentioned, because it is vital. It is essential that the best intelligence is gathered against this organisation, which is inflicting a reign of terror on our people.
The Government have considered a number of views over the years that the legislation has been on the statute book. The Government believe that now is the time to step forward regarding video recording. My colleagues and I do not want to put any impediment in the path of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security forces in bringing to justice those who have carried out these dastardly crimes, because they deserve to face justice and prison. In fact, I believe that those who are guilty of murder deserve more—I believe in capital punishment, and I believe that they deserve death. However, we are not debating that issue at the moment, so my comments must be restricted to the amendment.
Having listened to the matters that were debated in Committee and having listened to the debate today, we feel that it is necessary to protect the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the members of the security forces against false charges. Unfortunately, it is not easy to gain high-level intelligence if impediments are put in the path of the security forces. However, knowing the border area as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone does, it hurts the community whenever known criminals and murderers are taken to court and they get off on a technicality. It grieves the loved ones and the families of those who have been bereaved. Therefore, it is important that we do not give an inch. We must provide the necessary means so that terrorists cannot get out of court, continue their dastardly deeds and terrorise the community.
The new clause aids the security forces and protects them against false charge. I genuinely believe that, after banging his head against a wall, the terrorist has only to claim in court how he got the injury. A doctor examines his head, sees the split and writes down what he sees. The doctor cannot ask, "How exactly did it happen?" And, therefore, the character and integrity of a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is taken from him when he goes to court. He is lambasted for causing the known terrorist that injury.

Mr. Maginnis: Is not the hon. Member exaggerating? Let us consider the number of people who have been involved in terrorism, the number who have been questioned and the number who have been involved in the questioning. Say a terrorist injures himself and a policeman takes the steps open to him immediately. One does not split one's head open unless one is hit. If one hits someone hard enough to open his head, more often than not one injures oneself. There are ways around that, without placing constraints on the police, which will inhibit the collection of high-grade intelligence. I would rather one guilty man walked away from court every now and again than the police being perpetually inhibited in the collection of information and intelligence.

Rev. William McCrea: Surely the hon. Gentleman has to be very careful in going down that road. Why should we allow one guilty terrorist to walk out of court? What if that terrorist happened to murder the hon. Gentleman's loved ones after he walked out? How would he regard the fact that he had been able to get out? The measure is a protection for members of the security forces. We should not give terrorists any corner to crawl out of any judgment. If they are guilty, they should be found guilty. They should not be able to grasp at some straw and claim that they were unjustly treated in police custody.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure my hon. Friend has heard what has been said. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that, if the person doing the interrogating attacked and injured the suspect, evidence could be found on the attacker. Surely, the man carrying out the interview could throw the prisoner against the wall and split his head. How does the hon. Gentleman answer that accusation? I do not know where he has been living, but I have been studying the court cases. Such charges are trotted out in nearly every case that comes to court. It is said that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is at it again—beating people up in Castlereagh.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but interventions should by their nature be short. He should contribute later rather than lengthen his intervention now.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I got carried away.

Rev. William McCrea: I would rather my hon. Friend got carried away than the terrorist got carried away in his act of terrorism. Unfortunately, a great tragedy is happening in the United Kingdom. Terrorists are killing our people. We are talking about serious matters. In my


opinion, we are talking about the protection of the Royal Ulster Constabulary against false charge. If that means that we have to wear the videoing of such proceedings, it is important. The people of Northern Ireland want to ensure that the guilty are found guilty and that they do not get out of going to court.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), first, for giving way to me and, secondly, for the clarity of his exposition of what may or may not happen in interrogation centres. As I listened to the stories about people taking off their clothes, banging their heads against the wall and cameras coming down from the ceiling, I thought of a remarkable short story by Franz Kafka, called "The Trial", and I began to wonder whether we had got to the stage of surreality and literally lost sight of the new clause.
The new clause is simple. There is one difficulty about it—it is couched in terms of a code of practice. I am not in total ignorance of this type of legislation. Of course, I am not so learned and experienced as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone in these matters. I do not have his sources of intelligence or information, thanks be to heaven, but I have certain experiences. I have lived 60 years of my life in south Armagh and I am not altogether naive about what happens.
When I see the term codes of practice in relation to any emergency legislation, I say to myself, "That is the long finger"—the euphemism for never doing something or for doing it so much later that the needs and requirements may well have overtaken it long ago. How often I have stood here, in debate after debate on new clauses about the making of codes of practice? How often, in Committee, both on the emergency provisions Acts and on the prevention of terrorism Acts, I have seen new clauses of this kind. In reality, making a code of practice is a euphemism for never doing anything.
That is the reality and the surreality of the type of debate that we are having. We must add to that the situation that we are in, both politically and in terms of everyone's safety. We are talking about people throwing off their clothes and hitting their heads against a wall with a camera either above or below them. That puts the new clause into some perspective.
I have spoken in Committee in favour of audio and video recording not once but five times, I believe, for very simple reasons—not least the reason given by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). When one considers the hundreds of thousands of pounds that have been paid out in claims for injuries alleged to have occurred in interrogation centres, it would make good sense in financial terms alone to ensure that there is a record against which allegations can be judged.
One has also to consider the percentage of allegations settled out of court and not even tested in court. I am talking not about small amounts of money, but about hundreds of thousands of pounds. I do not know the exact figure. So far as I can remember, I believe that we are talking about well over £1 million, £2 million or perhaps even more. That is a substantial amount of money. However, that is not the main point.
Like the hon. Member for North Antrim, I believe that video recording is a protection for the members of the police service who carry out the interviews. It is a

protection and a record which can prevent allegations of that kind from being made and, if interrogating officers have acted irregularly, a way in which they can be dealt with properly.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Mallon: I will show the hon. Member the same courtesy as he showed me.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman has to some extent revealed his hand. He talked about the officer who has behaved improperly, but at the same time poured scorn on the idea that a person being questioned might strip off his clothes—that he might have repeatedly resorted to that tactic—and lie down on the floor or seek to injure himself against the wall of the room in which he is being questioned. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot get away with the implication that the police behave improperly while terrorists, who are involved in the most ghastly crimes, behave properly.

Mr. Mallon: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not want to have it both ways. If we had audio and video recordings and someone stripped off his or her clothes, took a mad dash at the wall, hit his or her head against it and fell to the floor, that would be on record and could not be used to make a false allegation. Similarly, if an interrogating officer did not work according to proper procedures, that would also be on record. In my view, that would protect both the person being interrogated and the interrogator.
I am not making a case, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone implied, against those who carry out the interrogations. However, a decision of the European Court of Human Rights stated that such incidents occurred and Lord Bennett's report, which was commissioned by the House, clearly stated that that happened. Have we or have we not a duty to protect both the interrogating officer and the person being interrogated, and to add to the evidence and material that can be brought to court? I believe that we have.
The greater the security problems that we face—such as the horrendous attacks that have occurred in recent days because of the political uncertainty—the more we must seek to retain the integrity of the process of law and public confidence in justice. New clause 5 is one way to do that.

Mr. Roger Stott: In the light of the speech made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who seemed to be very worried about the existence of the videos and what might flow from them, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) can reassure me. As I understand it, video recordings of suspects' interrogations would be treated like any other information that is gathered by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and they would be secure.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone seems to think that the videos would be shown at the local cinema or on the Bravo channel of Sky television. Who else would have access to videos made in Castlereagh apart from the RUC? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh and also—I suspect for the first time ever—with the hon. Member for


North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) that this is a very sensible provision. I am sure that the video recordings will not be readily available to the general public.

Mr. Mallon: My hon. Friend gives me the onerous task of attempting to define the position taken by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I will give the hon. Gentleman a further opportunity to clarify his position if he would like to do so.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he is slightly embarrassed, as all hon. Members should be embarrassed, by the glibness of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) in referring to the Bravo channel. His experience of Northern Ireland should have led him to understand how lawyers for accused persons have the right of access to available information. I assume that that is at least a possibility. If it is not a possibility, I am sure that the Minister will greatly reassure me by telling me that that information will never be available to lawyers in court and will therefore not enter the public domain in that way. The carelessness and glibness of the hon. Member for Wigan is out of place when one considers the extent to which terrorism pervades our society.

Mr. Mallon: I shall simply say that I hope that the position has been clarified for my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). When he makes that assessment, perhaps he will clarify it for me and for the rest of the House. I have no doubt that the Minister will give the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone every assurance that he seeks because we are talking about a code of practice and it probably will never become a reality. There is almost a bounden duty to give such reassurances, and I have no doubt that the Minister will fall into line. I shall be awaiting those assurances with great interest. I see that the Minister is nodding already.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone is right about one thing: we are in a very difficult, dangerous and tense period. There is no question or doubt about that. No one can underestimate the difficulties that we all face. However, we must all hang on to one thing: the integrity of the law, not only in its enforcement but in its ability to defend the individual. Ultimately, that is the only barrier between the type of anarchy that the terrorist groups want to create and the type of society that we wish to create. That is the acid test, and we should never forget it in this debate.
This debate is very difficult from my perspective; it is not easy and it will not be easy. There will be gloating. There will be those who tell us, almost with a great sense of self-justification, "Didn't we tell you so?" What did they tell us—that it is wrong to try to work for peace? Is anyone telling me that it is wrong to try to work for a system of justice that will protect society and the individual? It is not as if the new clause is remarkably radical—the hon. Member for North Antrim and I agree about some of it—but it goes to the core of the entire debate, and it concerns more than the video recording of interrogations or the audio recording of investigations. It deals with the key question: how do an informed Government deal with terrorism and at the same time protect the highest standards of law? That is what the whole debate is about, and not the peripheral matters that we have been discussing.
In conclusion, it is seldom that the hon. Member for North Antrim gets carried away, but by coincidence I was watching a video recently and I saw him being carried away quite literally and not just metaphorically.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I shall endeavour to be mercifully brief.
The debate is essentially about two issues. First, how far are people to be protected, in a democratic society, by the laws that are necessary in an emergency? Secondly, in those circumstances, how far are the rights of the individual to be catered for? There is no doubt that if the protection, as a Government may regard it, of society at all costs is to be the only criterion, one could easily end up in a police state. On the other hand, if the protection of individual rights is to be ensured, regardless of the needs of society as a whole, we end up with anarchy. In a democratic society, the Government must strive, in dealing with an emergency such as that which we face, to achieve what Horace described as the golden mean—the balance between the competing interests. The use of video is an attempt by the Government to find, in microcosm, a balance.
The ordinary rules of law for the protection of an individual in this society have been created to cater for normal circumstances: the right to silence, the right to have representation, the right to have a case heard properly and the right to be assisted by a legal representative when one may, through ignorance or inexperience, be unable to protect one's own rights. They were all created in circumstances in which many of the accused were illiterate or overwhelmed by the dignity, and sometimes the pomposity, of the legal process. They were frightened and needed to be protected. That is one end of the balance.
The other end of the balance is frequently seen in Northern Ireland. We are faced with an organised, highly intelligent, well-trained, violent and criminal conspiracy. The people involved are not bumpkins who do not know what is going on. They have been briefed in the latest anti-interrogation techniques, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has mentioned. There are well-established techniques for frustrating interrogations and inquiries which would be straightforward in a normal society. In such circumstances, the normal rules for an ordinary society have to be modified in some degree if society is to be protected.
At the same time, emergency legislation and abnormal circumstances provide opportunities for various sorts of malpractice by over-zealous police officers and by people who are privy to information, which although it is not evidence acceptable in court nevertheless shows in the strongest possible terms that the people being interrogated are guilty of the most hideous crimes. Eye witnesses may have made statements that the person being interrogated is the perpetrator of a murder but have also said that in no circumstances will they give such evidence in court because of the need to protect not only their lives but those of their families and children.
Such circumstances offer to an over-zealous police officer an enormous temptation to secure an admission or confession. However, a well-trained police officer knows that if he oversteps the bounds, he defeats the object that he seeks. It is for that reason that I endorse the midway


point—the balanced judgment—of the Government in this particular case. They suggest that there should be a silent video recording. That would undoubtedly provide evidence that there had been no overwhelming, oppressive behaviour and no resorting, if not to physical violence, to degrading conduct or behaviour towards the accused. That is a balance in favour of the accused.
At the same time, I oppose the suggestion that such video recordings should be accompanied by audio recordings of statements. From my experience, I believe that that would cause a diminution in the quality and range of the admissions, confessions or statements that are likely to be made by the accused.
We must face the real word. Many of the people who are picked up and interrogated by the police, and who agree to participate in a dialogue with them, are minor figures. However they can give evidence that may be helpful in tracing those who have been involved in shooting, murder or other serious crime.
When people who make such statements go back to custody in the cells, they are debriefed by the senior IRA or terrorist commander in the prison. Often they then decide to go back on their confessions and suggest that they have been obtained by improper or violent means. Recorded video evidence would be of great assistance in refuting that. At least then a person who made such a statement could still suggest that the statement was not his own. If, however, it is audio recorded and he is heard to make it, he may well fear that it will be treated as evidence given by him in circumstances where he was not terrorised or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment but where he volunteered the evidence because he was a peripheral figure who was frightened and possibly even did not know the degree to which he had been involved in a violent terrorist crime.
I believe that if audio evidence were admitted, it would be a serious brake on or obstacle to the police in obtaining information vital in the war against terrorism. I therefore endorse the view that the Government have taken a balanced and proper step in suggesting that silent video recording be used, but drawing the line at that point. It represents a balance between protecting the individual—which we should all seek to do in a democratic society—and not affording such protection to the individual in all circumstances as would cause this country to descend into uncontrolled anarchy.

6 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley: I put it on record in the House that people on both sides of the divide make complaints against the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I should not like hon. Members to think that only the nationalists and the republicans make complaints against the police—Unionists also make similar complaints.
I hold surgeries throughout the country and I hear many complaints against the RUC. I refer people to the complaints board and I assist them in putting their complaints before it. On many occasions, the police are wrong in their attitudes and in their actions against my constituents who happen to be Unionists—and they are found to be wrong. Let the House not think that all the Unionists are silent and that they are quite happy, because

they are not. Hon. Members should know that people on both sides are not happy about the actions of some police officers.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the cases of great injustice in Northern Ireland—that of the Ulster Defence Regiment Four—has its roots in what occurred at Castlereagh holding centre?

Rev. Ian Paisley: That is an absolute fact, which cannot be denied. I worry a great deal about the statement made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who said that the police should not be inhibited in performing their duties. Is a police officer inhibited if he knows that his actions in an interview chamber are being recorded by silent video? I do not believe that he is.
I agree fully with the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney): we must strike a balance. I do not support the introduction of audio videos. I understand that all sorts of matters are raised and all sorts of people are named during interviews. It would be unfair to place on record the names of people who were not in the interview chamber and do not have the right of reply. I am totally opposed to that concept.
I know people who have been dragged before the police at Castlereagh and the first question they are asked is, "Do you attend Mr. Paisley's church?" I could detain the House for three or four hours repeating the things that are said in interviews. I have no right of reply to such comments, and it would be totally unfair if those remarks were to go on the record.
It is reasonable to comply with the Government's suggestion today. We are striking a balance and the House should realise that, in so doing, it is not indicting the RUC entirely. I have always defended the RUC as a police force and a police service. I have also defended the Ulster Special Constabulary in this place. My first speech in its defence in the House caused the blood pressure of some hon. Members who sit on the Opposition Benches to rise.
Individuals must be kept under control and no police officer is entitled to behave in a less than proper manner. That is all that I am saying. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) tried to give me the kiss of death in this debate. As I sit between my two hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I shall survive that and live a little longer.
I believe that the House is striking a balance tonight. In my day, I have picked up many newspapers and read how so and so was abused, kicked and compelled to make a statement while in Castlereagh. People were told that, if they did not make a statement, they would be the worse for it. We must strike a balance and do what is right—which is what we are doing tonight. We have a right to protect police officers and to protect the innocent until proven guilty. In doing that tonight, we are advancing the cause rather than putting it back.

Mr. McNamara: When we last discussed renewing the legislation, I initiated a debate in this place on the Ulster Defence Regiment Four. We had a very interesting debate on that occasion, but that would not have been necessary if there had been, first, a video recording and, secondly,


an audio recording of the interrogations. The essence of the defence and the successful appeal in that case was that statements had been altered. The electro-static document analysis test was applied and it showed that the defendants had not made statements that they were alleged to have made. On that basis, three of the four defendants were eventually acquitted. That case would not have come before the courts if there had been audio recordings of the interrogations. Therefore, I have always argued in favour of such recordings.
It seems to me that hon. Members are making a false distinction between physical violence inflicted upon the person being interrogated and the power of psychological violence and verbal threats. People may be told, "We will give your name to so and so. Your children will not be safe. We know where you work and what you do. We can pass on information about you." As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) remarked, such things are said to people during interrogation—whether they are from the nationalist or the loyalist side; the threats are the same.
By passing new clause 5 today—and I welcome it—we are eliminating only one sort of threat. Over time, we have sought to protect people in interrogation centres bit by bit. Before the Bennett inquiry, people from both communities made accusations about the treatment that they received at Castlereagh and at Gough. It was said that there was not one word of truth in those complaints; they could not possibly be true. However, the Bennett inquiry took place and new protections were suddenly introduced.
Television screens were installed. However, interrogations could not be videotaped because that would cast aspersions on those who were watching the screens. Nothing could occur if someone was watching a video screen—even though that person was not independent. We again heard tales from both communities of coats being hung over cameras in the rooms and allegations about what occurred when supervisors were not watching a particular screen or were concentrating on a different interrogation. As a result, we have advanced to the position of introducing silent videos. I believe that the time will come when the position in Northern Ireland will be the same as in the United Kingdom.
I hope that we capture the people who are responsible for the crimes that have taken place in London recently. If we get them and they are interrogated in the United Kingdom, their every word will be audio recorded. Suddenly, I am asked to believe that there is a world of difference between a terrorist who explodes a bomb in London and a person accused of a similar crime in Ireland. I do not accept that. What a person does is as bad in Ireland as in England, and people should be treated similarly.
Recording protects members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and members of the police forces in this country. One of the easiest defences that a person accused of a terrorist offence has is to say that he was abused and that a confession was produced from him by threats, verbal or otherwise—and he will seek to defend his position before his operational commanders and so on on that basis.
Some people argue, "But we want, not to convict people, but to obtain high-grade intelligence from them." Many people from both communities have been picked up, interrogated and released without charge because the

security forces had been on fishing expeditions. That is a dangerous thing to do because it alienates generations, especially of young men, in both communities, from the concept of supporting the police and the rule of law.
Although I welcome the small, tentative step that has been taken, until we have full audio recording, sadly, the police in Northern Ireland will always be subject to questioning from both communities as to the nature and content of interrogations.

Dr. Joe Hendron: I know that the House will accept that holding centres such as Castlereagh or Gough barracks in Armagh would be unnecessary if there were no paramilitary organisations.
I am probably the only Member of the House—with the possible exception of the Secretary of State-who has been in Castlereagh many times over the years, although not recently. Since 1970, I have probably written hundreds of medical reports on people who have been to Castlereagh.
Like all hon. Members, I support all measures taken within reason and within the law to get rid of terrorism, of the IRA and of loyalist paramilitaries.
I accept most of the arguments of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) about protection for individuals, and definitely those about protection for the police.
I shall discuss Castlereagh because it is the main holding centre in the north of Ireland. It is a fact that the vast majority of young people who have been brought there for questioning have not been charged. I do not say that therefore they should not have been brought in. In the early years of holding centres such as Castlereagh, many people received injuries that, to use the words of the Bennett report, were "not self-inflicted".
I recall that report clearly because there had been great frustration for someone such as myself. As a medical practitioner, I went into Castlereagh and was in no doubt that some people had received injuries—people who were guilty of horrific crimes, whom one hoped would be found guilty. I believe that, as some hon. Members have said, many had received injuries, so their confessions or statements did not stand up in a court of law.
One case stands out from the many hundreds of reports that I wrote over the years—the Fullerton case, which occurred before the official IRA called a ceasefire. It was an odd case. I do not say that the person who was injured was a member of the official IRA, but he was linked to that tradition; he was not a "provo". The "provos" had said that they had committed the crime, and with such things, what they say is usually fairly accurate, yet that man was accused of that crime. As I said, he was not a "provo"; he was an official. He got a terrible beating.
The case went to court and the judge accepted that, unquestionably, the man had received a terrible beating. There were policemen A, B, C and D. Who was innocent? Who was guilty? As the judge said, we shall never know the truth. Policemen, who do a good job and whose work is difficult, are no different from people in various professions—one tends to support another.
6.15 pm
One thing must not happen in Castlereagh and similar places—the forces of law and order must not act as


recruiting sergeants for the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Defence Association, the Ulster Volunteer Force or similar organisations. I do not imply that any of those police officers have done that, but it has happened. I have often seen young people who definitely were not IRA—young people in west Belfast—who had been injured. One may call it ill-treatment or whatever one likes. Such measures are counter-productive.
The new clause is about protection for police officers and for those who are interviewed. Above all, it is intended to ensure that interrogation methods do not drive young people into the arms of the paramilitaries. God only knows that there are enough people in communities such as the Falls road and Shankill road in my constituency who will try to influence young people and drive them into the arms of the godfathers.
Proper video and audio recording would be the answer. It would protect the average policeman in Castlereagh and the person questioned.

Sir John Wheeler: The debate has ping-ponged across the Chamber as hon. Members have exposed the Government's dilemma in their attempt to reach, as the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) said, the midway point-to do what is right in the interests of justice and in the interests of recognising the reality of the present position in Northern Ireland.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for North Down for his intervention. The House would do well to listen to his wisdom and experience, and to that of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments and why he makes them, and I pay a warm tribute to his steadfast stance in support of the security forces in Northern Ireland. He was right to make the arguments he did, to reflect on the recent security developments, and to probe the provision. If I had believed that the Royal Ulster Constabulary would be damaged by what the Government propose tonight, I should not have moved the new clause; I give the hon. Gentleman that sincere assurance.
Introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) cited all the various vehicles that pray in aid an improvement in arrangements in the holding centres. Mr. Justice Kerr was once again exhibited for what he said in the case of Crown v. McLoughlin, Beck and Garland on 3 March 1995. It may help the House if I give the whole of Mr. Justice Kerr's view:
I feel constrained to say that the task of resolving the conflict would have been immeasurably easier, even at the prosaic level of reducing considerably the number of witnesses who require to be called, if audio equipment had been installed to record the exchanges at interview.
But he went on to say:
I hasten to acknowledge that there may be strong practical arguments of which I am not fully aware and on which I am not in a position to make a sound judgment which militate against the introduction of audio equipment in a case such as this.
That is the crux of the matter.
I entirely agree with Mr. Justice Kerr, as do other speakers in this debate, about the merit of the desirability of both video and audio recording. It is a question of

judgment, and of taking into account all the other factors. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie cited the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the learned John Rowe and the experience in England and Wales. All that is correct, but the balance that must be struck came out in debate—and the House should acknowledge the Government's dilemma in ensuring that justice is done, and that holding centres have the right facilities.
Against the arguments of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone was the advice of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who said that such recordings would be a way of protecting the police. He was absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that complaints are made about the way that the police conduct matters, and he was right about that. However, we boast in Northern Ireland the most stringent scrutiny of the Royal Ulster Constabulary through the independent complaints mechanism.
The Government recently announced a review of that mechanism, to test whether it is meeting our objective of bringing confidence into the way that the RUC works. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured.

Mr. Mallon: The Minister makes an important point about the police complaints procedure. In how many instances has a police officer been found guilty of a transgression? The House would be interested to have the Minister's guidance.

Sir John Wheeler: Proceedings in Standing Committee were sustained by a natural quest for statistical information. Hon. Members who were privileged to serve on that Committee will know that I endeavoured on every conceivable occasion to give such information. Later, I will return to the hon. Gentleman's point, when I hope that the information I provide will assist him.
The questions of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie were echoed by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who is concerned about the code of practice. The Government have established a joint working group with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and work has begun on the code of practice, technical aspects and setting up the scheme.
As the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie suggested, the siting of the camera or cameras and how or what they may record is a complicated issue, but I give him the assurance that a study will be made. The scheme would apply to all interviews in holding centres, and thus to all holding centres available for that exercise. It is not possible to say when the scheme will come into effect, because that will depend on how much work must be done on the technical aspects and on agreeing the code.
I acknowledge that, in the circumstances of the Murray case, there was a disparity between the operation of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the European convention on human rights. The deferral of access to a solicitor is not itself in breach of the convention, and we are looking at what must be done to avoid such a disparity recurring. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that assurance.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, in a wise and helpful speech, set out the case for not doing as the Government propose, but the police are in the


vanguard of the fight against terrorism. They have a variety of powers at their disposal under emergency legislation and ordinary criminal law. I have no reason to believe that the emergency legislation is not being fully used by the police to deal with the present violence.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh cynically pondered whether the code of practice would come into being, but I assure him that it will. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who is in his place, will be under a duty to make a code of practice and an order that will introduce the silent video recording in the way that the House has discussed. I hope that that assurance will give the hon. Gentleman the comfort he seeks.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of compensation cases. One hundred and fifty-two cases resulted in payment in respect of persons in a holding centre. In only eight cases was unreasonable force one of the grounds on which payment was made—the remaining cases related to faulty procedure. The total payment was £34,600 in respect of unreasonable force, and the total payment in all other cases was just over £237,000.
Why not go to full audio recording? The case for it was made by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron). The Government, and the House this afternoon, must balance the genuine effort to protect the rights of interviewers and interviewees, and to increase the efficiency of the courts, against not rendering impossible the acquisition of information from interviews in holding centres.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North perhaps disparaged the collection of intelligence. On this evening of all evenings, in light of what has occurred in London during the past few days and last night, any intelligence acquired as a result of a holding centre interview that preserved the life of one citizen would have been well worth it. The Government have an absolute duty to balance the interests of the preservation of life, and the safety and security of the citizens of this country, against the conduct of the police and of interviews.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister has made an outrageous statement. Nobody is denying the right of the police to interview people and to gain information from them, provided that it is done properly and within the law, a record is made of it, and that record is available to both sides. However, the Minister endorsed the right to go on fishing expeditions.
To use what happened last night or last week in London as an excuse for what the Minister is doing is absolutely disgusting, because no one in Britain will undergo the procedures that apply in Northern Ireland. The Minister should listen very carefully to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who knows from experience that those expeditions have been a prime recruiting ground for extremists from both communities.

Sir John Wheeler: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I are too far apart. I did not endorse the concept of fishing expeditions. My point about the work of the holding centres is that if, in the course of an interview, intelligence information is collected which prevents outrage, the House should rejoice. The hon.

Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is correct to say that those centres should operate within the rule of law and against the criteria of codes of practice. No one in the debate, least of all myself, would suggest otherwise.

Mr. Mallon: The Minister has kindly given us the figures relating to compensation. Will he clarify whether the settlements in relation to cases that were found in the European Court of Human Rights and any compensation paid in the case of the UDR Four were included in those figures? Before he finishes, will the Minister tell us how many police officers have been brought to court and found guilty under the procedure of the Police Complaints Commission? The House has the right to that information, because the Minister has made an important point in that regard.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just drawing the attention of the PPS to the Dispatch Box.

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is seeking detailed information. I cannot provide him with that information as I stand at the Dispatch Box. It is not lodged in my mind, but I shall write to him with the information, and, of course, a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library so that Members may have access to it.
The case for the Government's position is a midway point, as the hon. and learned Member for North Down said. It is a balance. It seeks to preserve the rights of an individual being interviewed, but it seeks to balance that with the reality in Northern Ireland as it sadly is today. It seeks to protect the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as the hon. Members for North Antrim and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) said so cogently. It is a fine line. The Government maintain that, in the present circumstances, the House should be invited to agree with the Government's position.

Mr. Mallon: I again thank the Minister for giving way, and beg the indulgence of the House for pressing the matter, but he raises a crucial point when he says that individuals in interrogation centres can be protected by the police complaints procedure. Will the Minister confirm that, since that legislation was introduced, not one police officer has been brought to court and convicted in terms of what may or may not have happened within the interrogation centres? Will he compare the figures with those for England and Wales, give some reason for that disparity and explain how that protection is operating in the way he says it is?

Sir John Wheeler: It could be said that, if there were no prosecutions of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, that is a tribute to them for following the procedures in the holding centres with such integrity and conviction. If I can give the hon. Gentleman any further information on that, I shall do so.
I conclude by referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster about the loss of life, the injuries and the outrages that have occurred in London. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will address the House later, but it is right in this early part of the debate to acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said, and to tell the House that the


cruelty and outrages that have occurred have nothing to do with democracy, peace or resolving the conflicts of Northern Ireland. I am grateful to him for bringing his observation to the notice of the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Minister for giving way, as I know that he was concluding his speech. A question was raised about to whom the tapes would be available. Will he address that?

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point when he asks to whom the tapes would be available. Herein lies the difficulty that the Government and the Royal Ulster Constabulary may encounter. It is conceivable that the tapes would find their way into the hands of those who would then make a judgment about the life of the person who was being interviewed. I know that some Members share the Government's concern and understand the possible consequences of that.
That is why the Government believe that silent video recording meets the interests of the moment and is as far as we can reasonably and honestly go in all the circumstances; and why, for the moment, we cannot go down the further road, as has been pressed by others, to include audio recording. Those are the reasons why I urge the House to support the Government new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 6

CODES OF PRACTICE:SUPPLEMENTARY

'—(1) This section applies to a code of practice under section 52 or (video recording).

(2) When the Secretary of State proposes to issue a code of practice he shall prepare and publish a draft of the code, shall consider any representations made to him about the draft and may modify the draft accordingly.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of any code of practice prepared by him; and when he has laid the draft of the code before both Houses he may by order bring the code into operation.

(4) An order bringing a code of practice into operation may contain such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.

(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of a code of practice issued by him and issue the code as revised; and subsections (2) to (4) shall apply (with appropriate modifications) to such a revised code as they apply to the first issue of a code.

(6) A failure on the part of a police officer to comply with any provision of a code shall not of itself render him liable to any criminal or civil proceedings.

(7) In all criminal and civil proceedings any code shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of a code appears to the court or tribunal conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.

(8) In this section—
criminal proceedings" includes proceedings in Northern Ireland before a court-martial constituted under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 or a disciplinary court constituted

under section 50 of the 1957 Act and proceedings in Northern Ireland before the Courts-Martial Appeal Court;
police officer" means a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.'.—[Sir John Wheeler.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

EXTENSION OF ACT BEYOND 24TH AUGUST 1998

'(1) Where, notwithstanding the provisions of section 60(10) of this Act, the Secretary of State is satisfied that in the interests of security in Northern Ireland this Act should continue in force after 24th August 1998, he may make an Order specifying that the Act shall continue in force after that date for a further period of no more than twelve months.

(2) Before exercising his power under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall make an assessment of the desirability of making such an Order, having regard to the evidence available to him of the threat to security in the United Kingdom and of the prospects for achieving a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Wilshire: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 58, page 37, line 30, after `60(3)', insert
'or section (extension of Act beyond 24th August 1998)'.
No. 2, in clause 60, page 39, line 28, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (1) of section (extension of Act beyond 24th August 1998),'.
No. 3, in page 39, line 29, leave out '1998' and insert '1999'.

Mr. Wilshire: While speaking to new clause 1, I shall also speak to amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which stand in my name. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are consequential to the new clause and amendment No. 3 provides an alternative way of achieving the same as new clause 1.
Perhaps it would make sense to begin by explaining what I am seeking to achieve. I want to find a positive response to a changed security position. I am also seeking to show the world that neither the House nor the British people will ever be bombed into submission. We can achieve that either by giving the Secretary of State powers to extend the duration of the Bill, or by extending it for one year ourselves. The new clause was prompted, it is fair to say, by the outrage at Canary wharf. Since then, there have been two further bombs, rendering the new clause doubly justified. Indeed, were I tabling it today, it would not be as mild as it is.
It is important to understand that the Bill left Committee before the Canary wharf atrocity. The decisions that we took in Committee, and the debates that we held there, followed 17 months of peace. I want to make it crystal clear that it will be no part of my case to suggest that what people said in Committee, or how they voted, had any bearing on my speech tonight. I mean no criticism of anyone; that sort of tactic will play no part in my argument.
In Committee, I said that I viewed the Bill as a holding measure. On Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, we had been given assurances that it was a holding measure pending the outcome of a comprehensive review, but Canary wharf has turned the Bill from a holding measure into a Bill for real. Since the Bill left Committee, there has been a fundamental change in the security situation in the United Kingdom. It would be irresponsible if the House did not, by means of a new clause such as this, consider what has happened since the Bill left Committee, and respond to the change in circumstances.
First, I believe that we should remind ourselves of how the original Act which the Bill will extend came about. It was a response to a campaign of terror, and in the face of that campaign the House was in no doubt that the original Bill was necessary. Unfortunately, I judge it necessary again today. That, at any rate, is the message sent to us by Sinn Fein-IRA. Over the past day or so, it is they who have said that the ceasefire is over—not I, and not this House. Sinn Fein-IRA have proclaimed that the peace process is dead, and that this Bill is now for real, not just a holding measure.
I contend that the powers are, regrettably, once again needed for as long as those evil men continue to use murder and mayhem in an attempt to destroy the freedom of the people of Northern Ireland, to destroy democracy, and to deny the consent of the people of the Province in determining their future through a democratic process. I know of no one in a free and democratic society who relishes taking powers of this sort, but in the light of the past few days, I believe that a firm response by the House is absolutely necessary. There are people who despise democracy and who would deny others their freedom. In so doing, they forfeit any claim that they might otherwise have to being treated like reasonable human beings. Those people are evil and ruthless, and they have not the slightest intention of working within the rule of law, once they work out the fact that that rule of law will not deliver to them what they believe is right.
Two weeks ago, when 17 of us finished debating the Bill in Committee, the people of Northern Ireland had been enjoying 17 months of a partial ceasefire. We were moving—some would say slowly, others would say at a reasonable pace—towards all-party talks. We were moving towards elections—perhaps even towards a referendum. We were moving very slowly towards decommissioning of some sort. In Committee, we were adding to the long list of changes that have been made to help to restore normality to Northern Ireland. Two weeks later, the ceasefire that we had almost taken for granted in Committee has been consigned to history. We face not just a one-off terrorist incident but a campaign of terror.
6.45 pm
After the Canary wharf bomb, I could see that it made sense to wait and see; but after three bombs I no longer think that adequate. We have to respond. It is Sinn Fein-IRA who have pulled the plug on the ceasefire and ended the peace process as we knew it two weeks ago. The challenge facing us tonight is to decide how to respond and what changes we need to make to the Bill.
Before deciding whether the new clause constitutes the right response, we ought to put the renewed bombing in its true context, to see whether it justifies a change of the

sort that I am proposing. The ceasefire was only partial in any case. It was only the bombing on the mainland and the sectarian killings in the Province that had stopped. Murder, torture, intimidation and extortion all continued while we discussed the Bill in Committee. I draw the attention of the House to a written answer that I received from the Minister of State on 14 February this year. In it, he confirmed that between 1 September 1994 and 7 February 1996, there were 12 murders in the Province ascribed to one or other of the terrorist organisations, and 287 people were injured in punishment beatings.
Another relevant part of the context is the fact that the resumption of the bombings on the mainland was not, I believe, a spontaneous reaction to the Mitchell report or to the proposed elections. From my reading of Irish history I would say that Sinn Fein-IRA never act out of frustration. They only ever act because they have planned a way of achieving their objectives. What they do is calculated; what they have started in London these past few days was clearly decided some months ago.
Despite the protestations of people such as Adams and McGuinness, and although they may not have known the place and the time, I cannot accept that they were not parties to the change of policy some months ago. Sinn Fein-IRA never, in my view, had any intention of allowing the majority in Northern Ireland to choose to remain in the United Kingdom. The resumption of the terrorist campaign in London signals to me the fact that they have now accepted that even all-party talks would not have delivered what they wanted: a united socialist republic on the island of Ireland.
The resumption of the terror campaign in Great Britain makes it clear that we have now to respond to the challenge of the IRA. It has spelt out for us that it is not interested in compromise. It is not willing to make concessions or to sign up to the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland. The resumption of bombing in London spells out what Adams and others have always hinted—that Sinn Fein-IRA hold democratic debate and democratic agreement in total and utter contempt. That makes the Bill for real, not a holding measure, and it makes the new clause essential.
I shall now deal with the details of my new clause and the amendments. New clause 1 would allow the Secretary of State to extend the application of the Bill for a further period if he judged that necessary in the security circumstances. Amendment No. 1 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the approval of both Houses for an extension. Amendment No. 3, alternatively, would extend the Bill for one year by action of the House rather than the Secretary of State.
I shall listen very carefully to the response to the debate by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that he will accept that a firm and urgent response is now vital. I hope that he can tell us that steps will be taken to protect the innocent and to catch those evil terrorists. If my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to persuade me against the course that I am advocating, I ask him to tell the House what the Government intend to do as an alternative to new clause 1.
I wish to ask my right hon. and learned Friend a series of specific questions. His answers, I believe, will decide what happens to the new clause. First, will the Government press ahead with the peace process despite what Sinn Fein-IRA say? Sinn Fein-IRA's actions make


the peace process more urgent and important than it was before. Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he still accepts that all-party talks—between parties that subscribe wholly and exclusively to democratic means—are the only way to bring a permanent and lasting peace to the Province? Will he, if necessary, work for that with the other parties even if Sinn Fein-IRA refuse to do so?
Secondly, will the Government continue to urge the loyalist terrorists to show restraint? If my right hon. and learned Friend does that, and I believe that he must, does he accept that firm action against those terrorists who have resumed their campaign is one way to encourage others to show that restraint?
Thirdly, will the Government demand similar resolute action from the Dublin Government? Will my right hon. and learned. Friend insist that the Dublin Government redouble their efforts to search out terrorists? I hear from the rumour mill that the Canary wharf bombers started out from the Republic. Will we insist that the Dublin Government redouble their efforts to find the arms and explosives that are undoubtedly hidden south of the border? Will we press the Dublin Government even harder to hand over wanted people without delay and without equivocation?

Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account in his questions to the Government that, after sitting in the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation for about a year, all the nationalist parties in Ireland produced a report that acknowledged the right of consent of the people of Northern Ireland and that the only party dissenting from that was Sinn Fein-IRA? Rather than placing the onus on the Dublin Government, will the hon. Gentleman place the onus—as a matter of honour—on each individual nationalist party in Ireland not only to repudiate the violence of the IRA, but to work actively to purge the activities of the IRA from our midst?

Mr. Mallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), by implication, to suggest that my party and the other parties that were involved in the forum which spent 18 months trying to achieve what he suggests was not achieved—no one regrets that more than I do, because nobody put more effort in—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, hon. Members are responsible for their speeches.

Mr. Wilshire: I heard the comments of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). We must try to avoid apportioning blame. It is perfectly reasonable for the House to say what it hopes that the Dublin Government will do.
If by some chance this debate should finish at a reasonable hour, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and I are supposed to be meeting with members of the Dail before the night is out. That will be an admirable opportunity to reaffirm—as I believe to be the case—that all the democratic parties of whatever persuasion in the island of Ireland are opposed to terrorism and in favour of all-party talks. I have no doubt about that, but we may have the chance tonight to confirm that.

Mr. Max Madden: The hon. Gentleman has asked whether the Government intend to

proceed with all-party talks. Is he suggesting that, if those talks proceed, Sinn Fein should be invited to participate unconditionally in any talks?

Mr. Wilshire: No, I am not. I am suggesting that the parties in Northern Ireland that are committed exclusively to democratic solutions should set up the means to have all-party talks and then we can review the situation vis-à-vis those who will not denounce violence.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your earlier direction to me.
Does the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) agree, as someone who has some experience of visiting Ireland, that all the parties that are party to the forum have—without any ambiguity—condemned violence this week, last week and for the first 25 years and that there should be no doubt in the mind of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone that that is the case? He has a duty to the House to amend or withdraw the implication of what he said.

Mr. Wilshire: The last thing that I wish to do is to get involved in an argument between two other people. I have not attended a meeting of the forum and I have not read the transcripts, so it would be quite unfair of me to try to adjudicate on what may have happened there.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that Sinn Fein was a member of the forum. How can the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) say that all members of the forum repudiate violence? Gerry Adams has blood fresh on his hands and he refuses to call what happened an outrage. He may be sorry because one of his IRA colleagues has died. We all regret any deaths, but I must say that I would rather a terrorist died than an innocent victim.

Mr. Wilshire: I suspect that the House would rather move on from that issue, so I will not accept any more interventions on that subject. Perhaps we can make progress.
The fourth question that I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will answer is whether the Government will ask the Government of the United States to withdraw Gerry Adams' visa. Will they be asking the United States Government to take steps to end Sinn Fein-IRA fund raising, and to ban the export of money back to the island of Ireland for the time being? The feting of Adams as a man of peace must stop. The blood of the victims of recent bombs is on his hands, and there can be no place for him in a process such as this until he condemns what has happened.
My last question is: what new steps will the police and security services be taking to protect the public in the United Kingdom, and to arrest members of Sinn Fein-IRA who have been perpetrating these outrages? Some will say that all that we are now suggesting has been tried before and has not worked, but I believe that the present circumstances are very different. The people of Northern Ireland have had 17 months in which to learn what a normal existence is like; in particular, young people have learnt, for the first time in their lives, what it is like to live in a normal society. If we take firm enough measures,


that will give us a chance to isolate the men of violence from the ordinary, decent people of Northern Ireland-people from both communities.
New clause 1 aims to do three things. It aims to spell out the fact that bombs will never succeed in the United Kingdom, to serve notice that resolute action is needed and must be taken and to offer the Government one way in which to respond to that need. I agree that there are other ways, and I am prepared to consider them. If they are forthcoming, so be it; if they are not, I commend the new clause to the House.

7 pm

Mr. Worthington: I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for tabling his new clause in such general terms, thus enabling Labour Members to record our horror at last night's events at the Aldwych and to convey our sympathy and support to victims and their families. We must pledge all our help to those who are recovering from the maiming inflicted by people who regard any member of the human race who is passing through the centre of London as a legitimate target. We also thank the emergency services for the work that they have done in harrowing circumstances.
The Governments of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland must proceed with determination on a united path to a political settlement by peaceful and democratic means. Overwhelmingly, that is what the people of both north and south want. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and I went to the Republic to meet the Taoiseach and the Foreign Minister, Mr. Spring, and the leaders of the other parties in both Government and Opposition. We were able to thank them for the strength of their condemnation of these appalling acts, and for the warmth of their support for the people of Britain in the face of such atrocities. We were made aware of the huge determination there, as here, to achieve the peace that can and must prevail.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Did the hon. Gentleman meet Mr. Reynolds, who is on record in the Dail as having said that our Prime Minister goaded the IRA to bomb London? Was that the message that the hon. Gentleman received when he visited the Republic?

Mr. Worthington: As I said, we met the Taoiseach, the Foreign Minister and the leaders of the parties. At present, of course, that does not include Mr. Reynolds, but he is on our visiting list: we should like to talk to him, and to anyone who can help the peace process.
I understand why the hon. Member for Spelthorne tabled the new clause, but we consider it unnecessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that he did not say much about what was in it. In fact, it merely gives the Secretary of State power to extend the Act—if it becomes an Act—by a year in 1998. Whatever happens in 1998, the position will not be the same as it is today, whatever Government are in power: we can say that with complete confidence. What is significantly different is that—following our encouragement—the Lloyd review has been set up to examine all aspects of anti-terrorism legislation. The flaw in the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Spelthorne is that nothing that has happened in Great Britain over the past fortnight or so is affected by the Bill.

Mr. Maginnis: I would not like the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand the significance of the legislation, or to

mislead the House inadvertently. A degree of co-operation is necessary between all police services in the United Kingdom, and between the United Kingdom and the Garda Siochona, the police service in the Irish Republic. The EPA is essential to the RUC's job of collating intelligence, and thus has an effect on the rest of the United Kingdom. That was well proven in the case of the Heysham bomb, which was intercepted just before the ceasefire.

Mr. Worthington: I could not have inadvertently misled the House, because the hon. Gentleman did not give me time to do so. What I said was that the legislation did not apply to citizens of the United Kingdom. We recognise that the PTA and the EPA are linked, however, and we encouraged the establishment of the Lloyd review to introduce anti-terrorism law applying to the whole United Kingdom. I believe that members of the hon. Gentleman's party would welcome that endeavour, and I think that he will acknowledge that I have not inadvertently misled the House.

Mr. Maginnis: I said that I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not do so.

Mr. Worthington: I think that, if the hon. Gentleman could, he would go on to say that I did not do so. The new clause is inappropriate because the Lloyd review will consider the EPA and the PTA, and whatever Government are in power will have to take on the arguments advanced by that review.
I do not think that the Government consider the present anti-terrorism legislation ideal; the Opposition certainly do not. It contains flaws. The Government have presented this measure as a two-year sticking plaster. We hope that the wound will heal in two years, but we also hope that the Government will not wish to extend such legislation for more than two years: both Government and Opposition recognise the flaws in it.

Mr. Mallon: I shall be brief, as I do not wish to prolong the debate or pre-empt the Bill's Third Reading. I support the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on the legislation. I have made my position very clear. I do not want to see it in place for one minute longer than is necessary, and neither, I am quite sure, does any hon. Member. It is important that we do not allow—I certainly cannot allow it—something to stand on the record which by implication suggests that the constitutional parties—if I may use that term—that attended the forum have not denounced and rejected utterly and without any equivocation violence of any kind. That has been done, and if anyone has any doubt about that, that person is not looking at the reality of the situation.
Reference was made to the report of the Forum for Pace and Reconciliation. The only point that I want to make about it is that there is a nationalist consensus on the island of Ireland. We can call it a pan-nationalist front or a nationalist consensus. We can put whatever name we want on it, but there was one, there is one and there will be one, and it is based on three things: first, that violence has no place whatever in our country, in our society or in solving any difficulties that we have on the island of Ireland. I stand by that nationalist consensus.
Secondly, if people have the right to self-determination, as the Government stated in the framework document, they also have the right to decide how they exercise that self-determination, and the people of Ireland have exercised that right to self-determination. The exercise of it must not be done by violent means. I stand by that nationalist consensus. The third element, to which reference was made, is the principle of consent. That principle is held by all the parties, with the exception of Sinn Fein, on the island of Ireland. It was built into the Sunningdale agreement in 1973. It was in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and underpinned it in 1985. It underpins the joint framework document. It underpins the joint declaration. It is there by a very distinct implication in section 20(e) of the Mitchell report. There can be no doubt in anybody's mind that there is a nationalist consensus. It is based on those three things and none other.
To the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who presented his case with great clarity, and to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who made the innuendo about the constitutional parties on the island of Ireland, I make this one point. Would hon. Members prefer that there was not a nationalist consensus based on those three principles, which are non-negotiable, cannot be deviated from and will not be diluted?

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the pan-nationalist front or the nationalist consensus, if that is the appropriate term, all had one thing in common: they were dedicated to a united Ireland, but not all of them were dedicated to a united Ireland by consent or by non-violent means, because that consensus, that pan-nationalist front, included Sinn Fein associated with the IRA, which did not and has not subscribed to the rest of the constitutional and nationalist view that consent and non-violence were part of that consensus?

Mr. Mallon: I am rather confused by the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I have identified the three principles on which nationalist consent or a pan-nationalist front—whatever one likes to call it—is based. They are not negotiable. They will not be diluted. They will not be changed, for whatever reason, because they are the very basis of democracy.
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman imagine a set of circumstances in which the Irish Government—whatever party or parties formed it—the Social Democratic and Labour party, all the other parties, excluding Sinn Fein, in the island of Ireland, and the Government of the United States of America would ever resile from the three principles: that one can achieve one's objectives only by peaceful means; that one has the right to determine how to exercise one's right to self-determination; and the right to consent, because the opposite of consent is coercion? Yes, I am in favour of a united Ireland. Yes, I am entitled to the right to work for and create a united Ireland through peaceful, democratic and political means. I demand that right, because it is a democratic right, but no one has any right in the name of the Irish people or Irish unity to use violence at any time, in any place and in any way.

Mr. Maginnis: I admire with respect the passion with which the hon. Gentleman makes his point. I feel, however, that, in his reference to me, he is tilting at a

windmill, because I did not suggest in any way that he was ambivalent about violence. I asked whether the parties that sat in the forum and assented to its report would, as well as repudiating violence, work actively to expurgate the anarchists whom we know as the IRA. That was the question that I asked him, and I hope that it cast no aspersions on his integrity, as it was never my intention to do so.

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have deliberately been tolerant in allowing a wide-ranging debate, which has covered much more than the new clause before us. I appreciate the seriousness of the debate, but I hope that we can now come to the framework of the new clause.

Mr. Mallon: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that ruling. I shall reply later to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, as it would be unfair to other hon. Members if we did not continue the debate on the new clause.

Rev. William McCrea: We are dealing with a serious matter, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members have exercised their minds, bearing in mind the serious nature of the problem, the great tragedies that have been experienced on the mainland and the threats that are currently being carried out in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is right that since the Bill was considered in Committee there has been a change in the circumstances. He sought to bring to the House a reason why the period should be extended further than two years because of the fundamental changes that have occurred. I believe that there has been a fundamental change and that we have heard a clear declaration from the IRA murderers. Sinn Fein's message has been clear: the ceasefire is over, the peace process is over and the carnage is now a reality on the mainland and on the streets of London.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would press ahead with the peace process. Whenever we look at the reality of the situation, we must ask ourselves whether in reality we had a peace process. In Committee, we were told a number of times by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about the complete change in circumstances. During the ceasefire there were 597 attacks on the police; 60 churches and chapels were attacked; 44 Orange halls and six Gaelic Athletic Association halls were attacked. There have been 10 killings, all republican, and 176 republican punishment beatings. That happened during the time that we were told was peace and normality. I assure the House that that is not the peace that United Kingdom citizens have a right to expect, and they ought to be protected. We should ensure that the emergency is met by emergency measures that will bring to an end the onslaught of terror and murder.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked about the peace process. I do not believe that, in reality, we had a peace process. One of the republican papers said 18 months ago that as the armed struggle was a tactic, so the peace process would be a tactic. The IRA, the activists and the army council, and Sinn Fein are one and the same. They realised that at that moment in the campaign it was


advantageous for them to stop the armed struggle because, through their contacts with Government sources, they were promised certain concessions. A dangerous promise was made by those in authority because one never makes concessions to terrorists and murderers. We now see the reality of the murderers and the murder gangs as they pay the people of the United Kingdom for all the concessions.
The terrorists hold democracy in contempt, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne said. There is an attempt to distinguish between the IRA and Sinn Fein, but it is a disgraceful attempt because there is no distinction. People say that Sinn Fein can negotiate while the IRA can bomb. That is not a democratic process.
I listened to the forum report given by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who said that there was a nationalist consensus. That is an interesting phrase. I have here a position paper which came out after the ceasefire; it was given to the activists by the IRA, so it is actually an IRA document. It is interesting that the document talks about the consensus. It refers to a briefing paper of April, before the ceasefire, which deals with
Strategic Objectives and events to that date in more detail than this paper.
It continues:
However a brief summary is helpful. Our goals have not changed. A United 32 County Democratic Socialist Republic. The main Strategic Objectives to move us towards that goal can be summarised thus
(a) The strongest possible political consensus between the Dublin government, S.F. and the SDLP.
(b) A common position on practical measures moving us towards our goal."
It then goes on to state:
The strategic objectives"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene, but it is a while since the hon. Gentleman mentioned the new clause. It would be helpful if he would get back to the new clause that we are supposed to be debating.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank you for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I am dealing with the new clause because I am suggesting why there should be an extension to the legislation. If we propose an extension, we must give reasons, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne did. He was permitted to ask the Government certain questions. I am giving important reasons why we are asking the House to extend the legislation.
Lives are involved. That is an important issue, as is the strategic position of the IRA, because the legislation deals with terrorists and what they seek to do. An interesting statement by them is:
Republicans are not prepared to wait around for the Brits to change. but as always we are prepared to force their hand.
That is exactly what has been happening over the past few days. The terrorists want to force the hand of the British people. That is stated in the document that was released way back in 1994 after the ceasefire.
We are dealing with a deliberate and calculated terror campaign. Some people have the idea that the present situation has just evolved or has been decided on at the last moment. My colleagues and I believe that when Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness made their statements, they knew full well that the bomb attack would take place

in London. They are part of the cold-blooded group of people who use the face of respectability that has been given to them, whether by the President of the United States receiving a murderer, Gerry Adams, into his presence, or by their reception in other parts of the world. The people of Northern Ireland believe that we need extended legislation because the emergency is of great importance. Failure to approve the legislation would send the people of Northern Ireland as lambs to the slaughter.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked whether the Government would continue to urge loyalist terrorists to show restraint. I wholeheartedly agree that there must be no action by loyalists which would provide an excuse for murderous attacks on innocent, law-abiding people. They must not, by their words or deeds, give an excuse for action by the terrorists of the Provisional IRA.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Government would demand resolute action by the Dublin Government in terms of searching out terrorists and handing over wanted people without delay or equivocation. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned some of the speeches made by, for example, Albert Reynolds, who created the conditions for Sinn Fein to ignore the call for decommissioning in December 1994 when he said:
If all the weapons were decommissioned before a settlement was found … that would be a recipe for disaster.
How could it be a recipe for disaster that the weapons should be handed over? No respectable politician will sit around a table with murderous thugs and try to reach some accommodation. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said in 1992:
There can be no guns on the table, under the table or outside the door.
As a result of what has happened since we debated the Bill in Committee, the legislation needs to be extended. My hon. Friends wholeheartedly agree that it is important to listen to what the Minister says. In the light of that, we shall listen carefully to the reaction from the hon. Member for Spelthorne and we shall react accordingly.

Sir John Wheeler: I take up at once the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) about secret undertakings. I make it clear to him and to the House that no secret undertakings were made by the Government in an attempt to win the prize of the Provisional IRA ceasefire. The British and Irish Governments are absolutely agreed on that. There are no secret undertakings: I make that clear to the hon. Gentleman.
In a robust speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) gave his reasons for wanting to extend the measure beyond the life currently proposed for it. I agree that the levels of violence in Northern Ireland during what the Provisional IRA called the military ceasefire have been great. I shall not weary the House by reciting the statistics in support of that opinion, as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster was good enough to provide a clear illustration of the seriousness of the situation.
Since the Provisional IRA renounced its ceasefire some 10 days ago, the heart of London has been blasted by two major atrocities. Thanks to the police, a third was avoided when a bomb in a telephone kiosk in Shaftesbury avenue was defused. The House will agree that the police and the emergency services have responded with professionalism


and courage to the events of the past 10 days—during the horror of docklands, in particular—and will continue to do so as the need arises. The House has roundly and absolutely condemned those outrages, which are not a part of the peace process. They illustrate only too well what Adams said outside Belfast city hall last year:
They haven't gone away you know.
7.30 pm
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and other hon. Members that once the Provisional IRA ceasefire ended, the RUC was put on full alert, and all immediate steps were taken to increase the police presence on the streets and to ensure that police patrols were appropriately protected by flak jackets and were carrying the appropriate armaments. Equally, the RUC will be supported by the Army as necessary. All the measures taken during the ceasefire to lower security and ease the lives of the people of Northern Ireland will be reversed to protect the people as necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked whether the search for peace would continue. I can give him a straight answer—yes, the search for a political settlement in Northern Ireland must go on. There is no question about that. What is in question is the role of Sinn Fein and the genuineness of its commitment to the peace process. I can assure him that the Government and the Government of the Republic will continue to work to secure a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. That is very important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked whether the Government would be doing all that they could, through all the opportunities and contacts available to them, to persuade loyalist terrorists not to respond. Again, I can give a clear and positive answer. The Government are doing all that they can to prevent the awful slide into sectarian violence that none of us wishes to see recur in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend asked whether the Government of the Republic will be encouraged to do all that they can to assist in the prevention of terrorist crime. I can assure him that the moment the Provisional IRA announced the ending of the ceasefire, the Government and security forces of the Republic responded immediately to assist the RUC without any hesitation. I am pursuing contacts with the Government of the Republic to ensure that all appropriate measures necessary to protect the lives of people in Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland are taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked whether Adams would again be granted a visa for the United States. As he must know, that is a matter for the United States Government. I believe that the renewal of any visa is under consideration in Washington, and I expect that the United States Administration will wish to take into account the renewal of violence. President Clinton has already condemned the bomb outrages in London and has expressed in robust terms his personal sadness at the betrayal of the hopes that he saw in Belfast when he visited in December. Department of Justice guidelines are in place to ensure that any money raised by fund raising in the United States can be used only for political purposes. Those guidelines have been in place since the summer of 1995.
The Government are reviewing very strenuously all the measures that they take to defeat terrorism, and are looking at intelligence and the way in which the police and other services are organised to respond to the threat. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that the police will be seeking those responsible for the crimes. They want to make arrests and bring people before the courts of law, and I can assure him that every endeavour will be made by the services of the Crown and supported by the Government towards that end.
The proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne to extend the life of the measure are well understood, but I ask him—and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, who spoke in support of the new clause—to reflect on what I have said. I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause, and I give him and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster—ever a reasonable man, in my experience—the firm undertaking that their proposal will be considered by the Government when the Bill reaches another place, in the light of developments between now and then. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will seek the leave of the House to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for the gentle way in which he disagreed with me. I appreciate that he spared me some of the grief and pain that he could have inflicted, had he wished to, and I understand his points.
I disagreed with only one thing that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said. He described his three points as forming a nationalist consensus, but I hope that he understands when I say that they do not: they form a democratic consensus. One does not have to be a nationalist or a Unionist to believe in what he said, and it goes without saying that I respect his right to use peaceful means to work for whatever he believes is in the best interests of his constituents.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) will not be surprised to hear that I agree with what he said. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for clearly responding to all my questions. I hope that when the country at large hears what he has to say, people will be reassured that the Government are taking swift and resolute action in the face of a dangerous security situation. I also very much welcome the assurance that the need to extend the measure will be considered in another place.
I understand the criticisms of my new clause and the amendments: a humble Back Bencher faces grave difficulties in trying to draft new clauses, as we do not command the panoply of the civil service and we do not share in the Short money that Opposition Front Benchers have to help them get things right. Despite the shortcomings of my drafting, however, I suspect that the Government, the Opposition and the House clearly got the message that I was trying to deliver. The new clause is not needed to prove that not only this House but the British people will never be bombed into surrender and that we shall do whatever is necessary to uphold democracy and defend the innocent.
In that context, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2

CODES OF PRACTICE: EXERCISE OF POWERS BY HER MAJESTY'S FORCES

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may make codes of practice in connection with the exercise by members of Her Majesty's forces of any of their powers under Part II of this Act.

(2) Subsections (2) to (5) and (7) of section 52 above shall apply to a code under this section as they apply to a code under that section.

(3) A failure on the part of a member of Her Majesty's forces to comply with any provision of a code under this section shall not of itself render him liable to any criminal proceedings other than—

(a) proceedings under any provisions of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, other than section 70; and
(b) proceedings under any provision of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, other than section 42.

(4) In this section "criminal proceedings" has the same meaning as in section 52 above.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jim Dowd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Members of the Committee gave the Bill detailed consideration. This evening, the Opposition have tabled only two amendments; we approached Report with some circumspection, because we have closely examined many of the provisions in the Bill. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and other hon. Members apropos the debate on the previous clause. The Committee concluded its deliberations on Tuesday 6 February; the outrage at docklands took place on Friday 9 February; a device was discovered last week; and there was an horrific incident last night.
Last night, a No. 171 bus—which had left Catford, in my constituency—was destroyed at the Aldwych. At 10.38 pm last night I was sitting in my office at the back of the house, some six miles from the Aldwych, and I heard the explosion quite clearly. It is a strange experience, which I am sure that many hon. Members from Northern Ireland will know from personal experience. There is no sound on earth quite like it—I could immediately identify what it was, and a few moments later my worst fears were confirmed on the television. Every civilised person must have been deeply shocked and saddened by the recent events, and nowhere have those feelings been more widespread and profound than in Ireland, particularly in Northern Ireland.
The new clause is straightforward, so I shall not take up too much time discussing it. It seeks to place members of the armed forces and police officers exercising comparable powers in a similar position. As the hon. Member for Spelthorne and other hon. Members said earlier, when we were considering that issue in Committee, we hoped that the involvement of the Army in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary would be a diminishing responsibility and, in the fulness of time, would cease altogether.
Sadly, events have taken a turn for the worse—to put it mildly—and additional troops have been ordered to Northern Ireland in readiness, but let us hope that they are not needed. Now that they are there, it underlines the point that I have tried to make with the new clause. Soldiers are not police officers—we accept that and we established it on numerous occasions in Committee—and it would be unreasonable to expect the same standards of training and

knowledge, particularly in the detailed points of law and responsibility, which police officers have. None the less, in Northern Ireland, soldiers and members of the armed forces are acting in support of the civil power. In those circumstances, the distinction between troops and police officers becomes somewhat blurred.
Clause 52, to which the new clause alludes, refers only to police powers and the ability of the Secretary of State to devise codes of conduct for the police. When we were drafting the new clause, we were careful not to do anything to displace military discipline, which must always be the overriding consideration for members of the armed forces. Since the 1991 Act, there have been significant changes to the part of the Bill to which the new clause refers. Clause 52 as it stands refers only to the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Our new clause seeks to restore the position that existed under the 1991 Act.
Section 61 of the 1991 Act gave the Secretary of State the discretion to make codes of practice in connection with the exercise by the police of their powers under part II of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 and the seizure and retention of property under the same Act. That discretion was subsequently removed from the Act. Section 62 also gave the Secretary of State the discretion to make codes of practice in connection with the exercise by members of Her Majesty's forces of any of the powers under part II of the 1991 Act. That is the provision that we are seeking to restore.
The tragic turn of events since the Committee completed its deliberations on the Bill is adequate justification for the caution that we would encourage in these circumstances. I accept that some hon. Members who served on the Committee will say that in other areas we were criticising the Government for not going far enough and for being too unadventurous on some of the proposals that they were suggesting, but we are now urging them to restore a provision that was in the 1991 Act.
We believe that codes of practice—notwithstanding the serious reservations of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—serve a dual purpose: they provide a framework within which public servants discharge their duties, and they provide a degree of public reassurance that duties are being carried out in a fair and even-handed fashion. Recommendation 66 on page 59 of the 1995 review by Rowe urged that such a code should be drafted and put into effect as soon as possible. Although the 1991 Act had that provision, it was not utilised. We should like that provision to be restored, and that is what the new clause does.
Throughout the Committee, there was a general feeling that every hon. Member was hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst. Sadly, the worst seems to have come to pass, but we hope that that is not permanent and that progress can still be made. In the light of recent events, the new clause is both relevant and modest. I hope that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), will be able to offer a reassurance that the Government will move in that direction.

Ms Judith Church: In supporting the new clause and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd)—who spoke in a reasoned way about


it—I confess that I came to the Committee on this Bill relatively inexperienced and uninformed on many of the issues affecting Northern Ireland today and in the past. I have learned much from my hon. Friends and from Government Members, but I am only too well aware of that which I still have to learn.
Although the situation has changed tragically and significantly since the Committee met—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West and other hon. Members have said tonight—we must ensure that our efforts today contribute to the continuing search for peace. Beyond the immediate carnage of the IRA's atrocities, the long-term casualty will be trust—trust between the communities, and trust between the communities and the authorities. We must not allow the fledgling understanding that was beginning to develop to be extinguished by the bombers and by their atrocities.
Part of that process will be in reaffirming the rights of the citizens of Northern Ireland, and I believe that new clause 2 will play a significant role in that task. Citizens must have faith in the balance of justice if they are to trust the authorities. There must be confidence in the channels of redress if fear and sectarian polarisation are not to worsen. However, in the recent context of the troop dispatch—a necessary measure in the light of events—the Bill, as it stands, is flawed by the omission of a code of practice.
If the Government omit that code of practice, which was present in the 1991 Act, they will be taking a retrograde step for the people of Northern Ireland. I cannot believe, having listened carefully to the Minister's words in Committee, that the Government intend that that should happen. If the Bill is passed unamended, the citizens of Northern Ireland will have even fewer rights than they had before the ceasefire. I do not think that there is any reason for the change.
As in Committee, I shall listen carefully to the Minister of State's explanation and hope that he will understand the points that we are raising on this important issue. It is not as if the incorporation of the code of practice is an insidious move—the Government supported it in 1991—nor will it give succour to the terrorists, to the criminals, or place unnecessary restrictions on the armed forces.
All the clause would do is give the ordinary people of the Province confidence that their rights are secure and will be secured. That confidence is even more precious today than when we met in Committee. The measure is not an optional extra, but a necessity. Only when the people of Northern Ireland have a more secure and unified outlook can we all have true hope for the future.
I trust that the Minister can provide a more enlightened view, despite the difficult new circumstances in which we and the people of Northern Ireland find ourselves.

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) for the reasoned way in which he introduced the new clause. I share the sentiments underlying the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) and am grateful to her for them.
The proposed new clause would re-enact a provision that is contained in the present emergency provisions Act, but which has not been included in the Bill. It would give my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State

discretionary power to make codes of practice in connection with the exercise by the Army of its EPA powers of arrest, search, entry and seizure—in other words, the Army's part II powers. On Lord Colville's recommendation in 1990, provision was included in the Act for codes of practice covering the police and the Army's powers under the Act. No such codes of practice covering the part II powers were drawn up. Work had begun and some progress had been made, although Lord Colville had acknowledged that the compilation of a code that would govern the conduct of the armed forces as well as that of the police would not be easy. Therein lies some of the Government's difficulty.
Part II of the EPA contained the following powers: to arrest, enter and search premises and vehicles, to search persons, to seize property found on persons or premises and to stop, search and question persons. The ceasefires of August and October 1994 resulted in those powers being used much less frequently. As a result, the decision was taken not to re-enact that provision in respect of either the police or the Army.
As the hon. Member for Dagenham suggests, in the present security situation, the Government may want to review that decision. I suggest that, by the time the Bill reaches another place, we shall be in a position to make a judgment on the anticipated further use of the part II powers, not only by the Army but by the police. Under those circumstances, I invite the hon. Member for Lewisham, West to withdraw his proposed new clause on the understanding that, if the Government consider it necessary, they will table a similar amendment, possibly to cover the police powers as well, in another place.

Mr. Dowd: That is a kind invitation. We greatly appreciated the manner in which the Minister responded to many of the points that we raised in Committee and the informative and courteous way in which he dealt with them. I am delighted to be able to tell him that it is an invitation that I shall accept. Obviously, we look forward to the results of the reconsideration in another place. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46

RIGHT TO HAVE SOMEONE INFORMED OF DETENTION UNDER TERRORISM PROVISIONS

Mr. Dowd: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 30, line 17, leave out 'forty-eight' and insert 'six'.
I am in something of a more embarrassing position than usual, although I am used to being in embarrassing positions, as my good and absent friend, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) was supposed to move this amendment. Given our earlier discussion on amendment No. 1, I think that we all know the essence of amendment No. 4. We know the background and the reasoning for the amendment and, in view of that, I shall say no more at this stage.

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) and, in the spirit of his remarks, I shall be as brief as I can.
I want to give a practical example of how the power referred to in clause 46 would be used. It is entirely relevant to the situation that we are facing in London and


elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The example is this: a group of terrorists plan to leave Northern Ireland and to plant a bomb in London. They choose to travel separately to Great Britain using a variety of different air and sea ports. The police get intelligence of the operation and an examining officer at Belfast airport successfully arrests one of the members of the gang under the prevention of terrorism Act. In such a situation, the police could take the view that it was important to delay the right of notification for up to 48 hours so as not to alert the other terrorists, either directly or through a third party. Those 48 hours might be absolutely vital in enabling the police to foil the terrorists, where a period of six hours would not do.
Terrorists are sophisticated and plan their operations over a period of time and with great care. Mr. John Rowe sets out in appendix N of his report the number of requests to delay the right. The figures show that the police use the power only rarely—when it is needed. I can advise the House that there were 22 delays in 1994 and none in 1995.
I hope that the House will agree, particularly in the light of that example, that the reasons for delay set out in subsection (8) of the clause are reasonable. The Government fully believe that the right should not be delayed unnecessarily and the statistics confirm that the powers are used only when there is a genuine need.
Furthermore, the Bill sets out—as does the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—the grounds on which a delay may be authorised. These are not, therefore, blanket provisions. The grounds are carefully and clearly set out in the clause and I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Events have perhaps contrived to leave us a wee bit in the dark about developments that have taken place. The Minister made no mention of the Murray case in his contribution. Surely that leaves a lot to be desired. It was worthy of some comment, particularly about how the Government are going to handle that case. As a non-lawyer, I would say that it is a new legal situation.
I shall briefly outline the reasons why I spoke in support of such an amendment in Committee. As I said there—I make no apology for repeating it—it is hard, or more probably impossible, for someone from the mainland of the United Kingdom to put himself into the position of the people of both communities in Northern Ireland. They have had to live with the situation as we have known it for the past 25 years, so I am always diffident about commenting on it. However, hon. Members are here to say how they see life and to lay their experiences before the House.
In our part of the United Kingdom, if a young person goes missing—my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned this—and we have no word of him or her, we can go to the police. In fact, it is more likely that the police will contact us. People can vanish in Northern Ireland without their relatives being informed. Detainees are held, in effect, incommunicado and their relatives are left in a state. I know how I would feel if one of my sons were in that position. In such a situation, parents in Northern Ireland must experience aggravation, concern and anxiety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), relating how some of his constituents sometimes get into bother with the police, made the point

that, as many people in Govan say, "The police wouldn't have lifted you if you hadn't done anything." We must always bear in mind the fact that just because someone has been arrested does not mean that he is guilty. There is the due process of the law, and we certainly must go along with it.
8 pm
I believe that the police should have that power of arrest, but holding people incommunicado for 48 hours goes against the grain. In the debate, the Minister—it is probably the only issue on which I remonstrated with him in Committee—used current examples to justify Government policy. Surely the reverse of that practice is to say, if we did not have those three incidents we should just do away with the emergency provisions Acts. Of course we should not do that, because we must deal with life as it is.
In the case that he outlined, the Minister implied—he can deny it if I have it wrong—that a solicitor would give information to one party that someone had been apprehended by the police, and thus warn that party. That is the implication of what he said, but I must remind him—I shall not go into too much detail in deference to all the people concerned—that careless accusations against legal professionals in Northern Ireland have already led to tragic and serious consequences. I hope that no accusations of that type will be made tonight.
The Minister is surely aware of the Murray case and must realise that it represents some change. After the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, violent paramilitary suspects in Northern Ireland can now expect greater access to solicitors during interrogation. According to the judgment, the United Kingdom breached paragraph 3C of article 6 because Mr. Murray did not have access to a solicitor. That theme springs up again. One of the themes that I and other members of the Committee pursued was how these laws affect the United Kingdom's image, credibility and reputation for justice abroad. We now have a serious legal ruling that that practice was a breach of the European convention on human rights.
The judgment surely merits a response from the Minister as to how the Government will react to it. It is very hard to believe that the Minister is stonewalling and saying that, despite that ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, there will be no change in the Government's position. In view of the genuine pleas of the public and of all members on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, that the United Kingdom should have a reputation as a place where justice is done and seen to be done and that we should not have lower standards of justice than elsewhere, which would only feed the paranoia of those who try to justify violence, I ask the Minister to respond to the new facts of the Murray case.

Mr. Worthington: I entered the Chamber to hear the Minister utter the dreaded words, "We reject the amendment." I suggest that he has rejected the amendment as it is written rather than considering its intention.
The amendment relates to the Murray case. The Minister threw us by discussing that case under a part of the Bill to which it is not relevant rather than at this point,


where it is directly relevant. I ask him to address that issue because I was quite encouraged by his words at the beginning of the debate.
I thank the Minister for his letter to me in response to my query about how Her Majesty's Government would respond to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The Minister is absolutely right to say that the Court's judgment was by no means a blanket condemnation of the British Government's case. By 12 votes to seven, the European Court decided
To deny access to a lawyer for the first 48 hours of police questioning in a situation where the rights of the defence may well be irretrievably
damaged
is—whatever the justification for such denial—incompatible with the rights of the accused under article 6.
That is what causes the Government difficulty.
I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister would agree that it is very important for a country with our position in the world—as a member of the Security Council of the United Nations, in particular, and as a backer of international organisations—to be seen to respond to such judgments. Our voice would otherwise be lessened when urging other Governments to behave in a judicially appropriate manner.
I was encouraged by the Minister's earlier response and his letter to me about the Murray judgment, in which he said:
We are considering what measures might be necessary"—
I tentatively suggest that the question is not what measures might be necessary but what measures are necessary—
to bring law and practice into line with the requirements of Convention as set out by the Court in this case.
That is a problem for this, or any, Government, because we want to ensure compatibility between law, practice and the requirements of the convention.
As the Murray judgment was delivered only in the period between the end of the Bill's Committee stage and Report, we shall not be unreasonable and expect the Government fully to declare their position. However, the Bill is primary legislation, into which the Government must inject a change. They will miss an opportunity if, during the Bill's passage—it will now have to be done in the Lords—they do not amend the Bill to bring this country's practice into line with the convention. I hope that the Minister will accept that statement.
Such an amendment would not apply to an enormous number of cases, because one of the encouraging recent developments is that, of 180 requests in relation to scheduled offences between the period October to December 1994, only four suspects were denied immediate access, and I doubt whether any of them was denied access for 48 hours. It is therefore a relatively small problem to solve. One doubts whether law enforcement agencies would be at all inhibited were we to accept the judgment of the European Court. I hope that the Minister can say encouraging words to us about what is to happen to the Murray judgment during the Bill's remaining stages.

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) implied that my earlier remarks may well reflect on the involvement of solicitors in such matters. I can give him the assurance in the House that I never make any such remarks about solicitors. I am surrounded in the House by learned Members, and I know better than to comment on their professional conduct or behaviour. The inference, if any, that could be taken from my illustration, was clear: terrorism is an evil activity. The means by which terrorists obtain information, intimidate, threaten and bully are many and varied. In those very few cases where the power is exercised, it is often exercised because life may be saved. I gave an illustration of that process that was entirely pertinent to the state of peace and tranquillity in London at this very moment. I know that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
I had earlier referred on the Floor of the House to the Murray case, and I say to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that the only point against the Government in the decision concerned Murray in the sense that the drawing of inferences from the defendant's silence during interview could not be used before the defendant had seen his solicitor. It is a subtle judgment that requires careful analysis, and it raises implications. I have said that the Government intend to take it away and study it, to comply with its obligations and to do what is appropriate and necessary to bring our obligations into line with the judgment. That has always been the Government's position, and we shall do that.
For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Dowd: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52

CODES OF PRACTICE: POLICE POWERS

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 34, leave out from beginning of line 19 to end of line 5 on page 35.—[Sir John Wheeler.]

Clause 58

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 38, line 6, leave out `or 52' and insert
'(Video recording) or (Codes of practice: supplementary)'.—[Sir John Wheeler.]

Clause 61

SAVINGS, AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 39, line 38, at end insert—

'() Where this Act repeals and re-enacts provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, the repeal and re-enactment shall not, unless the contrary intention appears, affect the continuity of the law.

() Any document made, served or issued after the commencement of this Act which contains a reference to an enactment repealed by this Act shall, so far as the context permits, be construed as referring to or (as the context may require) including a reference to the corresponding provision of this Act.

() Any document made, served or issued after the commencement of this Act which contains a reference to a provision of this Act shall, so far as the context permits, be construed as referring to or (as the context may require) including a reference to the corresponding provision of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.'.—[Sir John Wheeler.]

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Since the Bill received its Second Reading on 9 January, the Provisional IRA has announced its despicable decision to end its ceasefire. That decision it and its friends have tried to justify by means of what one commentator yesterday called an "Olympus of mendacity". In addition, we have experienced here in Great Britain terrorist attacks, achieved or attempted by the IRA, that are disgusting in their immoral character and horrifying in their scale.
The Bill relates to Northern Ireland alone. Its purpose is to make special provision for the maintenance of order and for the rule of law there. But each of the recent events, taken alone, let alone in their totality, surely justifies the contents of the Bill in each and every one of its provisions. They wholly vindicate the Government's decision to introduce the Bill as and when we did.
With the permission of the House, and within the rules of order, I should like to take a little more of its time than is usual in a Third Reading speech. Some things, in particular, I wish to make abundantly clear.
First, the British Government in this democracy will not be shifted from their chosen and democratic course by bombs or by the threat of bombs, or by any variety of violence. We shall ensure that all practical measures within the law are taken to protect life and property from this evil. That means that all practical measures have to be available, which is what the Bill is about.
The perpetrators of violence should realise that, in this democracy, they will make no political progress whatever by means of violence. On the contrary, violence will serve only to harden the minds of ordinary people against what the perpetrators of violence seek to achieve. Nor should the perpetrators conclude, if this is their hope, that they will succeed in escalating violence and promoting instability by provoking terrorists on the loyalist wing to retaliate in kind.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has suggested today, with his usual shrewdness, that that is indeed the IRA's aim. It may well be its aim, but I urge and trust that the wise restraint and the mature and responsible leadership shown by those who head the loyalist parties be maintained. I salute them, and, with all sincerity, I urge that they continue to be heeded. Retaliation would achieve nothing but regression and disaster. And incidentally, whom would the retaliation be against?

Mr. Stott: I heard the Secretary of State on the radio this morning and again on television this evening. What he has said about the minority Unionist parties, particularly Mr. David Ervine and Garry McMichael, and the courageous stance that they have taken, should be recognised and put on record. I very much agreed with

what the Secretary of State said this evening, and I invite him once again to put it firmly on the record in Hansard in the House of Commons.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that I need to repeat myself. It was put to me this morning on one programme that some price might be paid for not retaliating. I at once disabused the interviewer of any notion that a price is payable for somebody not breaking the law. I said what I have said about the restraint that is urged, and I earnestly hope that it will be maintained and heeded.
Secondly, I wish to make it clear that the sort of violence from which the Bill will protect the public will not distract or deflect Her Majesty's Government from their mission to help the people of Northern Ireland to find in this democracy a true and lasting peace. That peace will need to be based upon a comprehensive political settlement of the conflicts—a settlement itself founded on consent.
I will, with permission, quote the words of the Prime Minister in the House on 12 February, when he said:
we are not at the end of the road to peace. If we are pushed back, we will start again. If we are pushed back again, we will start again. If we are pushed back a third time, we will start again. There can be no end to the search for a permanent settlement in Northern Ireland until we have achieved a permanent settlement in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 12 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 660.]
I am glad to acknowledge once again in the House this evening that that is the objective of all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, of both the British and the Irish Governments and of all parties in the House. The objective is common ground.
The means by which that objective is to be attained are common ground—by inclusive democratic negotiation. For years, the Government have laboured to attain that objective, and no one in the Government has laboured with greater dedication than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Where disagreement exists, it is to be found only on the subordinate issue of how the start of those negotiations may be secured. Only there are we not as yet on common ground
I think that each of those observations has the assent of everyone in the House. That assent itself gives the lie direct to Mr. Adams in his assertion in west Belfast last week that the British Government have reneged on and broken every commitment that they have made. We have reneged on no commitment, and broken no commitment. With sickening hypocrisy, Mr. Adams asserted that negotiations frighten the British Government.
The British Government have done more to foster inclusive negotiations on a settlement in Northern Ireland than any Government in modern times. But the British Government know one thing that apparently eludes Mr. Adams—that in this democracy, people will not negotiate about the future of their country if they do not have confidence in a permanent end having been reached to the use of, or support for, paramilitary violence.
That is why, in the Downing Street declaration, the British and Irish Governments confirmed that it is those who are democratically mandated parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods, and have shown that they abide by the democratic process, who are free to participate fully in democratic politics and to join in dialogue between the Governments and the political parties on the way ahead.
As we discuss the need for the Bill, let us do so in the light of Mr. Adams' prevarications on the IRA's recent bombs, and of his attack upon the Government's good faith. It is we who have immediately accepted the recommended principles of the Mitchell report. Indeed, we accept the report itself. Sinn Fein-IRA have accepted none of them. Why not? Let them be asked.
With the Irish Government, it is we who have put in place the twin-track approach, and we who are operating it intensively with the purpose of enabling all to enter into inclusive negotiations. Sinn Fein-IRA have dumped it by returning to violence. It is we who had withdrawn from Northern Ireland since the ceasefire three battalions of infantry—some 1,600 men—with all their weapons and munitions. Sinn Fein-IRA stood down not a man, nor decommissioned a single weapon.
It is we who have restored a higher level of remission of sentence for terrorist prisoners, in reliance on the promised reduction of risk. Sinn Fein-IRA have not even heeded President Clinton's plea to release from their unmarked graves the bodies of their murdered victims so as to allow their families to give them a final and decent burial.
Mr. Adams, placing a cap on this Olympus of mendacity, claims that our policy has been dictated so that we can remain in power. Let him explain then why it has had the support of the official Opposition, who are generally thought to have an interest in getting us out of power.
We debate the Third Reading of the Bill tonight with the knowledge that there has, in truth, only ever been one obstacle to inclusive all-party negotiations, and that is the absence of the confidence that is needed to get all parties there—the confidence that the stipulations of the Downing Street declaration will be fulfilled by all participants. It has never been a question of decommissioning on the one hand or negotiations on the other, nor a question of either elections or negotiations. It has always been a question of negotiations or no negotiations.
A start to decommissioning and an elective process have each in their turn been put forward as a doorway to those negotiations, because each would convey the confidence that, in a democracy, negotiators need. We wish to have an inclusive negotiation. Sinn Fein-IRA impose their own disqualification. We want to see it removed. Only Sinn Fein-IRA can remove it. They should do so.
In Committee, I know that we have had serious and vigorous debates. I am most grateful, as is my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), to all hon. Members who served on the Committee and took part in its debates for the manner in which they made their contributions, and for their appreciation of the Government's position. I am also grateful for the graceful tribute paid to my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), which I know to be well deserved.
Across the Floor, we share a common aim—to have in place balanced legislation that both protects the people of Northern Ireland against those who choose violence because the ballot box will not give them what they want, and also protects individuals from any unnecessary

incursion upon their rights. It has to be legislation that gives the necessary powers to protect the public and the security forces as well. The challenge is to find the correct balance in the light of the prevailing security situation and of what can reasonably be foreseen and must therefore be prudently guarded against.
The Bill was drafted to reflect the ceasefires and the fragile peace that they had produced. Viewed against the current Act, a number of changes have been made. Most notable are the provisions for the silent video recording of interviews in the holding centres, which we debated earlier, and the separation of the police and Army powers so as to provide the flexibility to suspend Army powers at an appropriate time.
The Bill keeps the power, which is in the current Act, to suspend many of its provisions. That power has been exercised already in respect of executive detention, and it would be exercisable for other provisions from the outset of the new Act if circumstances at that time warranted it.
In drafting the Bill, we have followed very closely the recommendations of Mr. John Rowe QC, who conducted the last annual review of the current Act. His views and recommendations, and the clarity with which they are expressed in his report, informed much of our discussion in Committee. The House owes him a great debt for the contribution that he has made both to shaping the Bill and to the debates on its various provisions.
We look forward next to the outcome of Lord Lloyd's review, which has now begun. We do so notwithstanding the grave blow dealt by recent outrages to the prospects of our present need for special protection under the law being reduced. Meanwhile, the public, for whose safety all of us in the House are responsible, need the Bill and all of its provisions. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: Last week, we shared our sympathies with the families of Ivan Bashir and John Jefferies. Now we have another death to add to the catalogue of murder. The IRA ended the ceasefire brutally and murderously, leaving London battered and sad. Last night's bombing was a shocking and callous act. There are no ifs and buts in the condemnation by all hon. Members of those who kill and maim innocent people.
The terrorist's greatest weapon is fear. We welcome and support the determination of those in all communities who are working to restore peace, and acknowledge, as did the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), the courage of those in the loyalist community who are maintaining their resolve and standing by their ceasefire.
We acknowledge above all, as politicians, that people in Northern Ireland especially and in these islands together, have broadcast widely their desire for peace. The Tanaiste, Dick Spring, has tried to encompass that with his white ribbon for peace campaign. We have only to look at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions rally last Friday, the keep-the-peace phone-in organised jointly by the Irish News, the Belfast Telegraph, the News Letter, Sunday Life and Sunday World, the numerous rallies, books for peace, and postcards for peace, to learn what people in Northern Ireland have learned: that we must stand together, because we cannot stand alone.
We have got used to talking about a peace process. Even now, in the absence of peace, there is a determination that the process must continue. We support


and encourage the two Governments in maintaining that process. There must be urgent action. People desperately need the reassurance that momentum—and only politicians—can provide. We hope that the two Governments can reach an agreement between themselves in consultation with those parties which are committed to peace and to democracy.
Elections and a referendum have been suggested as a way of bringing the parties into all-party talks together with the two Governments. We believe that those ideas could be combined: a referendum could be held both north and south of the border, and there could be a Northern Ireland elective process, or indexation, to let the people speak, both about the background to the talks and about whom they want to take part.
There must be widespread agreement if that, or any other, idea is to work. To help reach agreement, the Irish Government have proposed proximity talks, and the Prime Minister has spoken of intensive talks. We believe that there should be a first stage of what we call intensive "design" talks, so that, in the design of the negotiations, there is ownership among the participating parties. Since any substantive negotiations must take place within a framework that looks at all relationships, both Governments must be involved from the outset.
I listened to the Secretary of State this evening when he referred to the agreement on the general objective of all-party negotiations, although there is debate about how we shall reach that point. I shall put two options to him, and ask whether he has considered both of them.
We could set in train a process of proximity intensive design talks, followed by a combination of an elective process and a referendum, leading to a set date for all-party negotiations, in which those who are committed to peaceful and democratic means could participate. Alternatively, we could set a date for all-party negotiations for those who are clearly committed to peaceful and democratic means and then move backwards, in a sense, to a process of proximity intensive talks and a combination of an elective indexation and a referendum. I would be interested to hear the Minister respond as to the merits of those two mechanisms in moving towards the desired objective which, as the Secretary of State said, all hon. Members share.
Constitutional parties on both islands are prepared to work for a negotiated settlement. The Downing Street declaration set out crucial principles that we can work to implement. Agreement between the two Governments has been the bedrock of progress so far. That can, and must, be re-established. We cannot allow it to be lost. Labour is appalled by, and opposed to, all acts of terrorism. The people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain must be protected; their security is paramount.
We welcome and support the prudent and proper steps that the security forces have taken since the ending of the IRA ceasefire. We welcome also the positive steps that the Government have taken in dealing with the legislation, such as transferring the anti-fraud and racketeering measures to the ordinary criminal law—which is surely their proper place. It is a trend that we welcome and encourage.
We welcome also the introduction of silent video taping. We would have preferred audio taping to be included in that measure and we urge the Government to take that important step when they can. We welcome also

the Secretary of State's assurance that he will be alert to his powers under clause 60 of the Bill when circumstances allow. We welcome the Government's positive response to our call to see measures in the legislation to bring both law and practice into line with the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights, as set out in the recent case of John Murray.
My hon. Friends who have served on the Standing Committee of this Bill have asked me to thank the Minister of State for the way in which he responded in Committee—especially with the provision of information. My hon. Friends have also spoken about the conduct of the Committee, which was mutually respectful. It is quite clear that no one in the House is soft on terrorism—everyone wants to deal with it as effectively as possible.
Nine months ago, Labour offered the Government the opportunity to make common purpose in the fight against terrorism. We urged the Government to begin an immediate review of both the emergency legislation in Northern Ireland and the prevention of terrorism Act. That review would help to produce new counter-terrorist legislation in order to respond to the changing nature of terrorism in the United Kingdom and worldwide.
However, the review—which could have been completed—did not begin until after the Second Reading of the Bill. We voiced then our concerns about the delay, and its consequences for all those who are affected by emergency legislation. Our arguments for opposing the emergency provisions Act in recent years have been stated clearly and concisely. We have argued that section 34—the internment provision—gives the state, the executive, an unacceptable power to imprison without either charge or trial, and that the Government have ignored the kinds of reforms proposed by their advisers on matters such as full electronic monitoring of interviews and access to legal advice for those in holding centres. Those important considerations formed the basis of our reasoned amendment on Second Reading.
I said during that debate that we would not oppose the Bill on Third Reading. Accordingly, we will not divide the House tonight. We welcome the Minister's assurances regarding our amendments, and we have withdrawn them accordingly. We welcome the review by Lord Lloyd that the Government announced on Second Reading. We want a considered and effective approach to anti-terrorist legislation, and Lord Lloyd's review should help to provide that—as the Secretary of State implied. We shall submit our views, and we look forward to the conclusion of that review. We have made it clear that we will not vote to leave the people of Northern Ireland unprotected, without any anti-terrorist legislation.
I had hoped that the background to tonight's debate would be positive and forward-looking. Sadly, it is not. The resumption of IRA bombing is a tragedy that should never have happened. It must stop. Democratic and peaceful politics requires agreement and consensual progress. It is a fact of life that all who are committed to the democratic path will recognise; it takes time to achieve.
Progress in the peace process may at times have been slower than some preferred—but that is democracy. It is a fact that resorting to violence will impede progress, not speed it up. That is against the interests of every person living in Northern Ireland, who knows that at any second


he or she could be plunged back into carnage, just as it is against the interests of every person throughout these islands.
A greater sense of urgency is needed on all sides, but the greatest threat to rapid progress is a continuation of the bombing. Today, the commander of the anti-terrorist branch, John Grieve, said:
We in the police are doing everything we can, but we need your assistance—communities cannot allow criminals to ruin our lives".
Legislation can help, but terrorism will be defeated only by the courage, determination and flexibility on the part of those who wish for a lasting, just and peaceful future for Northern Ireland.

Rev. William McCrea: I join the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) in expressing appreciation to the Minister of State for the effective manner in which he handled the details of the Standing Committee, the manner in which he answered the questions put to him and, perhaps most of all, for the courtesy which he showed to all members of the Committee. All Committee members are deeply indebted to the Minister for the way in which he carried out his office and for the courtesy that he showed to all who participated in the inquiry.
I say that very genuinely, because the Minister took on board all of the issues that were raised and he sought to provide answers—if not at that time, then at a later stage—which were received and studied by hon. Members. I put on record our deep appreciation to the Minister.
I think that it was a good inquiry and that Committee members—especially those from Her Majesty's Opposition—scrutinised all of the issues. All hon. Members who served on the Committee performed the tasks required of them. The inquiry was detailed, exciting on some occasions and, I trust, informative on others. It served a vital purpose in scrutinising the very important legislation which affects the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.
Not one Member of the House, including my honourable colleagues, wants the legislation to last a day longer than necessary. The legislation is there, not because of the democrats of the Chamber, but because of those who hate democracy and fight against it—the terrorists. They are responsible for the legislation being placed on and remaining on the statute book. It is important, therefore, that we have emergency legislation for as long as the emergency lasts.
I trust that effective security measures are being taken and that they will continue to be taken to ensure that the terrorists do not achieve their goal—to bomb, murder and destroy law-abiding citizens into submission to their terrorist mould.
The debate gives the terrorists a clear message. We, the people of the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland and here on the mainland, will not be moved one inch, one iota, from our desired democratic path by the bombs that they have let off against us or with which they seek to destroy us or by their campaign of terror.
A message needs to be delivered loudly and clearly. For 25 years, the people of Northern Ireland withstood the carnage of the terrorists. I assure all those who believe

that they will achieve a united Ireland by the means of terrorism that they had better realise that after those 25 years of terror, the people of Northern Ireland are more determined than ever before to remain a part of the United Kingdom. That is not because, as some propagandists say, occupying forces are in Northern Ireland to try to force the people against their will, but because the people of Northern Ireland desire to remain a part of the United Kingdom—and that desire is freely expressed at the ballot box. We are delighted that the vast majority of the community, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, of the people of Northern Ireland, unitedly state that they believe that the best future for their children lies within the United Kingdom.
Terrorism is nevertheless a reality and must be defeated. If there is to be genuine peace in Northern Ireland, there must be no guns on the table, under the table or outside the door. The guns must go. The Semtex must go. The suggestion that Gerry Adams was at any time a democrat sickened those who were democrats and have confronted the onslaught of terrorism in the past 25 years. I should like to know of an occasion when Gerry Adams condemned one IRA bomb or one murder carried out by the IRA. The answer is, he has never done so to this day.
Mr. Adams may say that he will not walk down the path of condemnation just because someone asks. Common decency demands that he condemn acts of terrorism, as it is right that the House should. I hear that condemnation from colleagues on both sides of the House. We condemn murder as murder. There is no excuse for persons to take the law into their hands and destroy the lives of the innocent people of Northern Ireland or of this part of the United Kingdom on the mainland.
Gerry Adams is not a democratic politician and it was revolting and sickening to see him paraded when he set aside the old jumper that he had worn for about 10 years and the image of having been in bed for about five years without having combed his hair, and adopted the slick image of a new coat—provided by someone—a new wardrobe and a well-trimmed beard. It is as well that he kept the beard on because this morning, whenever he answered questions by one of the media from the Irish Republic, he had the brass neck to tell the people who knew something about the murders on the mainland not to tell the police, that it would be wrong for them to tell the security forces, and that he would not condemn such acts of carnage. Then he had the audacity and the brass neck to suggest that he regretted it. People of the United Kingdom well know that to hear that from Gerry Adams is not only sickening but like driving the knife deeper into the stomach of the person who has already been hurt by the terrorist act of violence.
As the House considers the emergency legislation, I must tell the Secretary of State and the Minister of State that we have a question in our mind. In Committee, it was drawn to our attention that there was a prosecution under legislation whereby a person might be convicted for directing terrorism. That prosecution was on the loyalist side of the community. I do not say that that should not have been done, but if it was right that a person was accused of such a crime, can anyone suggest why the likes of Gerry Adams, with blood on his hands, and Martin McGuinness, equally with blood on his hands, could not be prosecuted? The security forces know the credentials of both those persons. I am told that a recommendation


was forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions—although my informants tell me that it did not arrive because it somehow got lost on the way or was misplaced—regarding the credentials of Martin McGuinness.
The people of Northern Ireland are waiting. They want to know exactly why those persons are not brought in under a charge of directing terrorism, because they are as guilty as those who planted the bomb on the mainland and no one in Northern Ireland believes that Gerry Adams did not know that the bomb was being planted at Canary wharf. Indeed, we believe that that was part of the dual scheme—Sinn Fein in its propaganda exercises and the IRA in its murdering enterprises.
In connection with that, has the Secretary of State seen the article that was printed in the press concerning the IRA army council? What is the position concerning Gerard Kelly, Pat Doherty, Rita O'Hare, Kevin McKenna and Brian Keenan, who were mentioned in the document? Has the matter been fully investigated? Are those the people behind it? For example, how could a lady—if she is in terrorism she is far from a lady, but a woman—who should be protecting and participating in the giving of life be in any way associated with the dastardly deeds of taking innocent people's lives and the destruction of people, on the mainland or—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I have given a fair amount of latitude to speakers, knowing what the situation is at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman is trying my patience a little because we are discussing the Third Reading of a Bill and, in normal circumstances, that is very strictly interpreted. If the hon. Gentleman would return his remarks to the merits or otherwise of the Bill, I should be grateful.

Rev. William McCrea: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The legislation is necessary because terrorists are on the loose in the United Kingdom. If those persons were not in an army council—if there were no such thing as an army council—there would be no need for emergency legislation and we would be glad for the legislation to be done away with. Other hon. Members have acknowledged that it is a wide-ranging issue, and certainly it is. Lives are at stake. We need legislation that deals with recruitment, targeting, regrouping, re-arming and the continuation of the threat to the peoples of Northern Ireland.
When the Secretary of State introduced the Third Reading debate, he said that the IRA had not stood down one man or surrendered a weapon, and that is true. Those weapons are held not for democracy but for murder and destruction.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister of State about a subject that we discussed in Committee. What is happening to special prisoners who were let out on licence because of the ceasefire? Will they be returned? I am speaking about those who have breached the so-called ceasefire, who have returned, not only to murderous intent, but to murderous activity.
My constituents are in grave danger. Many isolated people along the border are living in fear. There are in the community a number of well-armed terrorists who are seeking to destroy the lives of people in the Province and

in the rest of the United Kingdom. There is an emergency, and it is important to know exactly where the Government stand. Many law-abiding people who want genuine peace are deeply concerned. We will never have the genuine peace that has been talked about in this Chamber until terrorism is defeated and destroyed. If the Bill can take us down that road and achieve that aim, it will be in the best interests of the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Trimble: Before I mention general points, I want to raise one matter of detail to which I referred on Second Reading, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) pursued in Committee but which has not been answered and dealt with adequately. I refer to the provisions relating to terrorist fund raising and financing. The terrorist funding unit has been operating for a number of years and it has been most successful in restricting the flow of finance to terrorists. The effect may not be immediately apparent, but that activity is important in striking at the roots of the terrorists' ability to cause mayhem and disturbance. It is essential, particularly in view of the events of recent days, that the existing powers remain on the statute book in an effective form.
Labour Front Benchers said that the anti-racketeering provisions are being moved from the Bill to ordinary legislation, and it is right for that to contain measures to enable the courts to confiscate the proceeds of crime and the ill-gotten gains of persons involved in organised crime. However, the provisions in the draft order dealing with the proceeds of crime are not effective in replacing section 57 and the associated schedule of the emergency provisions Act. The Minister referred to that matter in Committee and wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, saying that he would table an amendment to the proceeds of crime order. Unfortunately, I have not seen the text—I understand that it is not available—so I have to go by the Minister's letter to my hon. Friend, in which he stated:
The amendment would relate to the definition of criminal conduct in article 2(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Order. As at present defined that definition of criminal conduct refers to a number of offences but excludes the offences under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We propose to remove that exception.
Doing so will mean that the provisions of the order would apply to offences under the prevention of terrorism Act, and the provision for financial investigations under the order would then be available. However, that does not go far enough. The order enables the financial investigation provisions in article 49 to be available where there is an investigation into whether any person has benefited from any criminal conduct, which will be defined by reference to offences in the prevention of terrorism Act. I see two problems with that. When dealing with terrorist financing, there may not be a personal benefit. Also, we are still referring to the committing of an offence. I note in passing that offences under the Act are rarely brought successfully. If it is necessary to bring a conviction under that legislation, the provisions will rarely bite.
Compare those restrictions with the width of provisions in the emergency provisions Act, which enable an authorised investigator to be appointed where there is any investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary into the existence of the resources of a proscribed organisation and of funds that may be applied or used for the commission


or furtherance of acts of terrorism or in connection with them. There is no requirement in existing legislation for an offence to be committed, or for a person to be convicted of an offence or to have benefited. The wide existing provision focuses on the resources of proscribed organisations and the funds that may be used in connection with the commission of terrorism.
Although it seems from the Minister's words that an effort has been made to broaden the provisions in the proceeds of crime order, they are not as broad as the Act's existing provisions. If we are faced, as we appear to be, with the renewal of the terrorist campaign, it is extremely important—especially at present—to be able to attack terrorist financing. There is reason to believe that in recent months, terrorists—particularly the IRA—have been running short of funds. Although they have been able to keep going with the $1.5 million that they raised in the United States last year, that source of finance may cease to become available to the same extent, in view of the renewal of violence. It is extremely important that the power is broad and wide enough to cover terrorist financing.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way that he explained that fairly technical matter. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. It is certainly not our intention that future legislation shall be in any respect less broad than at present. I give an undertaking that the matter will be examined, with a view to securing that at least that principle is implemented. We will examine the matter fully and carefully.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the Secretary of State for his intervention and assurance. I remark in passing that that is another good reason for having the other place, even in its present form.
No one can seriously contend that there is no need for the Bill. I wish that there were clearer, more forthright acknowledgement of that fact from Labour Front Benchers. They voted against the Second Reading, giving various reasons. The truth was evident from the conduct and body language of the Opposition spokesperson. It was a question of looking over one's shoulder, at certain elements among Labour Back Benchers who seem to exert inordinate influence over the mind of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who leads for the Opposition.
Over recent years, I thought that the Labour party was moving to a more honourable and forthright position on the need to combat terrorism and I was sorry to see that element of backsliding. I was also sorry that this evening there was not a more forthright acknowledgement of that need and a realisation of the change in circumstances. When one considers the ground that Labour advanced for voting against the Bill on Second Reading—the fact that the provision for internment remains in the legislation—it is clear that that provision would be resorted to only in the most extreme circumstances, but it is also clear that we might be faced with those circumstances.
Those who have followed the Dublin press over recent weeks may have noticed the reference in a few interviews by journalists who were able to speak to the leadership of

Sinn Fein-IRA to the belief that exists among the leadership of Sinn Fein-IRA that a sharp, savage campaign—those were the adjectives used in the Dublin press—in England would break the Government's will. Perhaps we have seen only the first instalment of what may be about to come. There is a significant and serious risk of a savage campaign, given the language that was used in the Dublin newspapers.
Against that background, it would be criminally irresponsible to foreswear the use of the power of internment. That power exists to be used on a pragmatic basis according to a judgment as to whether or not it will succeed. It has been used successfully many times over the past decades, but on one occasion it did not have the desired success. It is a matter of analysing the reasons for success in some cases and failures in others and the failure to judge when it is appropriate to resort to it. It may well be that, before too long, circumstances will arise when it will be necessary to resort to it. If those circumstances exist and there is the prospect of a successful exercise of that power, clearly, it should be used.
There would, however, be a difficulty with an immediate recourse to that power. It is now fairly clear that the bomb that exploded in docklands close to Canary wharf was organised by a tightly knit group within the IRA, based almost exclusively in the Republic of Ireland and that, in all probability, the bomb was manufactured in the IRA's usual bomb-making factories in the Louth area. According to journalists' reports over the weekend, the operation was directed from Monaghan, the telephone warning came from just outside Drogheda and all the indications are that the persons who ran the operation were physically located in the Irish Republic. That is not to say that they were natives of the Republic; some of them are natives of Northern Ireland who are now domiciled in the Irish Republic.
Another feature of the operation that ties in with what was happening before the ceasefire was the recruitment of "lilywhites"—persons from the Republic with no previous background or involvement in terrorism who are, therefore, unlikely to be picked up by the security services and the police in Northern Ireland, England or Wales.
The fact that the roots of the operation lie in the Republic of Ireland shows that immediate recourse to internment would not be successful from the point of view of authorities in the United Kingdom. If the authorities in the Republic were to act, however, it would be an entirely different matter. Those authorities have a duty to take action and to ensure that their territory is not used as a base from which to launch attacks on another country. I am aware of no action by authorities in the Republic to discharge that duty. We have been told that they did not detect the operation and were as surprised as anyone else by the bomb in Canary wharf. That suggests that they had no adequate intelligence on it. I hope that they have taken steps to repair that and that they will take further steps to show that they are prepared to discharge their obligations to their neighbours under international law.
Current events underline the need for a single uniform code covering the entire United Kingdom. The attempt to pretend that Northern Ireland is in some way distinct and distinguished from the problems that apply to the rest of the United Kingdom was exploded by recent events. We made that point a number of times in previous years,


we shall repeat it to Lord Lloyd when he undertakes his review and I very much hope that it will be reflected in his recommendations and in future legislation.
There have been comments on what has been called the peace process and suggestions as to what should be done about it, how to keep it going, advance it and speed up the tempo. I listened to the comments by the hon. Member for Redcar, although I did not find any of her proposals attractive. Nearly all of them are far divorced from what we would find desirable in the present circumstances.
Rather than looking at the detail of the peace process, it would be better to go back to first principles and to consider what has been happening during the past two years. What is called the peace process stemmed from propositions advanced in the autumn of 1993—propositions particularly associated with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). If I may summarise his hypothesis of the time, he said that peace was possible if only the Government made a reasonable response. Underlying his proposition was the suggestion that those involved in terrorism had realised the futility of their actions and wished to get out of the terrorist campaign. They wanted to make progress towards peace and democracy and would do so if only the two Governments gave them the opportunity.
It was quite reasonable for the Government to respond to this hypothesis; no criticism should attach to them for so responding. It is reasonable to say that people should make the effort to achieve peace and should, for that reason, be prepared to take risks from time to time to achieve it.
Over the course of the past two years, the hypothesis has been subjected to tests. The whole point of the Downing Street declaration, particularly paragraph 10, was to provide tests of the hypothesis, to see whether it was genuine, and as the Government said, to create the necessary confidence in it. Now we have seen what has happened. The events of the past fortnight show that even if the hypothesis had some validity two years ago, it no longer corresponds with reality.
I do not say this with pleasure. Over these two years, to be sure, we have expressed a certain amount of scepticism about the hypothesis, and there is a temptation now to say that we have been proved right. But if we have been, I take no pleasure from it. It would have been better if the hypothesis had been right and we had been able to move towards peace and democracy. Events, however, have shown that it is not true.
The fact is that what we had a couple of years ago was an agreement on a stratagem, or tactic. Sinn Fein-IRA embarked on what they called the ceasefire because they had been persuaded that it would be possible, in the event of a cessation of violence, to put together a coalition stretching through Sinn Fein, the SDLP, the Irish Government and Irish America—a coalition that would exert pressure on the British Government.
I noticed in this connection a comment made by Garret Fitzgerald in The Irish Times a few weeks ago, to the effect that when it proved impossible for Mr. Albert Reynolds, the then Prime Minister of the Republic, to obtain a ceasefire on the terms of the Downing Street declaration, he jettisoned part of it and obtained a ceasefire on other terms, giving various undertakings to achieve it. I noticed also that an IRA representative, in an interview last week, used language consistent with this hypothesis. In any event, the real ceasefire was clearly different from the declared ceasefire.
Reality came home to Sinn Fein-IRA in the aftermath of the Clinton visit. Sinn Fein-IRA had been led to believe that Irish America, and its influence with the White house, was their trump card. When the President stood in Mackie's and told the terrorists that their day was over, I think they realised that this was not going to be their trump card. There is reason to believe that the strategic decision to resume violence was taken in December, weeks before the publication of the Mitchell report. Journalist sources certainly suggest that.
So the basic proposition that underlay the peace process has been shown to be false. The bombs that went off in London destroyed the ceasefire, and must also have destroyed any future ceasefire based on the same hypothesis. A great deal has been said about the need to restore the peace process and resume the ceasefire, but it must be realised that there is no prospect of returning to the ceasefire that we thought or hoped existed before last week.
The only ceasefire on offer was suggested by Mr. Adams last week. He talked of a ceasefire that would be offered only in exchange for a clear commitment to move immediately to all-party negotiations, without any preconditions whatever, and within a clearly defined time limit. That ceasefire is not worth having and is not one to which we could be party. We could be party only to a process that was genuinely based on a permanent end to violence, which was clearly intended to be permanent and if the parties' actions were entirely consistent with such an intention, with all that entails. That would mean returning to paragraph 10 of the Downing Street declaration and fulfilling what it said about peaceful intent, the democratic mandate and abiding by the democratic process.
I appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have been kind in allowing me to wander a little from the terms of the Bill. We will have to explore these matters in greater detail on other occasions. The events of the past few weeks must cause us to reassess what has happened over the past two years. A valiant effort was made to achieve peace, but we must realise that that effort has failed. We need, therefore, to reassess not just the hypothesis, but the motives and actions of those who presented that hypothesis. We need to consider how we can restore the political process and, at the same time, we need to ensure that effective legislation is in place to deal with the security problem that we may be about to face.
We need not just legislation, but an effective strategy to defeat terrorism, because it is no longer possible to hope that terrorism will go away of its own accord. We must try to work out an effective strategy. I believe that that can be done. The parties could return to the suggestions that were made by the Chief Constable a year or two ago for the strengthening of terrorist legislation. All the Bill would do is to reproduce most of the provisions in the EPA. As I have said, I think that the Bill omits an important part of the old EPA, but it could be strengthened in the ways that were mentioned by the Chief Constable and others several years ago. It is pity if we have to wait for Lord Lloyd because there is still an opportunity in another place to strengthen this legislation.

Mr. Mallon: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of those who were on the Standing Committee. I thank the Minister and all the other members of the


Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and to his colleagues for a remarkably good presentation of the position, and to all the people on the Standing Committee, including the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis): when the day comes, as it inevitably will, that he and I are not on Committees dealing with emergency legislation there will be a massive gap, albeit one related more to our sizes than to our contributions.
I am delighted to see the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) in his place. I went through the records in relation to previous legislation and I was struck by two comments made by the right hon. Member when he was the Minister dealing with the emergency provisions legislation for Northern Ireland. I think he will agree with me—if about nothing else—that that was some time ago. In Northern Ireland, we look upon the right hon. Member with affection and great respect. When he was a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, dealing with emergency legislation right in the middle of the most awful violence that we have seen in the north of Ireland, he made a speech in Munich in advance of a previous Standing Committee. I shall quote two extracts, which are as relevant now as they were then. He said:
Democracy should seek to derogate as little as possible from the normal standards of justice and government which would normally apply.
I agree with that statement. He also said in the same speech:
Progressive policies without regard to moderation, civilisation and restraint could actually feed terrorism.
I agree with that, too. I believe that that thesis is equally valid now, and it was equally valid long ago when Thomas Jefferson said—in a different context—that if one sacrifices justice for security one ends up losing both. We must never lose sight of that principle—the principle enunciated by the right hon. Member for Chelsea—when we are dealing with legislation of this kind.
I should like to deal with many elements of the legislation in detail, but I have had my chance over many years in a number of Committees, and I hope that this will be my last chance to speak about such legislation. I hope that nothing that I say on the Floor of the House will exacerbate a tense and difficult situation, and for that reason I do not intend to refer directly to the political dimension that we are discussing. It would be easy to provide not a reason but an excuse for avowed terrorists to use whatever is said here as a spurious justification.
I know that it was not intended, but it has been suggested in today's debate that the suffering of those who were killed, maimed or bereaved in London was somehow less immediate for us in the north of Ireland than it would have been if the bomb had gone off in Belfast, Derry or anywhere else in the north of Ireland. I know that I speak for every other hon. Member representing the north of Ireland when I say that that is not true. The compassion and the sympathy are felt by everyone in the north of Ireland. They are tangible: they are there to be seen and touched. They are no less immediate because the Irish sea lies between the two islands.
People here should realise that. At some stage during the debate, it has been implied that violence here is bad because it might start up violence in the north of Ireland

again. That is true, but let us not forget that everyone, no matter where they live, must be protected from violence of this kind. Send not to know for whom the bell tolls: it tolls wherever it may toll, and human nature and the human condition are lessened by it, no matter where.
I wish to challenge two other theses. In this context, I turn to another British poet—Wilfred Owen—who in one of his poems challenged the great lie:
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"—
"It is a good and noble thing to die for one's country". I also challenge that thesis. No one on the island of Ireland or outside it has any right or mandate from the Irish people to say that they are killing in the name of the Irish people. I give no one that right and I attribute it to no one. The wish of the Irish people, as determined—indeed, self-determined—by them is that violence cannot be exercised in their name. I call upon those within the so-called republican movement—I use that term because I regard myself as a republican in the true sense of the word, and I believe that they have besmirched it—to stop telling the great lie to young people in our country: stop propagating the awful untruth that somehow it is noble to kill other people for a spurious type of Irish unity which would not be worth the paper it was written on if it were obtained by the deaths of the two people of Canary wharf, and the thousands of other deaths.
I also challenge the notion, and I do so at every opportunity, that there is not a nationalist consensus. I repeat that there is, there was, and there will be, and that it is based on three principles. First, no one has the right to use violence in the name of the Irish people to solve the problems in Ireland. I stand by that principle. Secondly, if we have the right to self-determination, as recognised in the joint framework document, the Irish people have the right to decide how it will be exercised, and they have self-determined that it shall not be exercised in that way. The third principle is that of consent. All political parties, outside Sinn Fein, on what is loosely called the nationalist side, have a consensus. It is not something for the mood of the moment. It is not something to be used just when it suits. It is a basic principle.
In our debate earlier, the central point was missing. What has happened is that the IRA and Sinn Fein have seemed to be outside the nationalist consensus, to be outside the consensus that is based on those three principles, to be outside what is a positive and constructive dynamic within Irish life, and they will remain so. The people who stand outside it are Sinn Fein and the IRA. Is that new? They stood outside the Sunningdale agreement and blew it to smithereens. On the Anglo-Irish Agreement, there were three factors against it: the Unionists, the IRA and Conor Cruise O'Brien. Then there was the joint declaration. They stood outside consensus on that, and the framework document, and the report of the new Ireland forum, and the Mitchell report. The tragedy of the Mitchell report was that it was not tested on the Floor of the House the day it was brought out.
We can surmise, but the basic thesis of the IRA position is this, and I challenge it. The most chilling part of the IRA's statement of last Thursday was its reference to "Irish national rights". That is its definition of the three principles. Its definition of the three principles is contained in those three words. I put this to the IRA and to everybody. Do they for one moment imagine that my


party, or the Irish Government, of whatever hue, or the number of parties that make it up, or all the parties that signed the forum report, or the United States Government, will ever resile from those three principles? If they do, their case is fatally and fundamentally flawed, because what they mean when they talk about a pan-nationalist front is changing and diluting those principles. The assumption, which is wrong, is that the SDLP will change its view on those three principles. It will not, and neither will any other party in Ireland. We stand by that nationalist consensus and on no other ground. That is the greatest strength in terms of argument in the entire equation.
The British will, of course, always be wrong; no matter what they do, IRA-Sinn Fein will have a reason to say that. The British can be plausible, easy or populist, but they will be wrong. The Irish Government will be wrong, as they are at the moment. I take this opportunity to say again that I support the stance taken by the Irish Government. They are the sovereign Government of the Republic of Ireland and I totally support their stance of not speaking at ministerial or Government level with people who are connected with violence. However, they are wrong, too, and we are wrong. I remember when, not so long ago, we were Lundies and sell-outs, and I was a west Brit.
In the mind of the IRA, everything has changed except the dogma—I refer to the great line by Wilfred Owen. IRA members believe that, somehow, they hold the holy grail and that all the rest of the people in Ireland, including nationalists and real republicans, are wrong. We can put the IRA to the test. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) made a proposal for a referendum. He said that for the first time since 1918 we should let all the people of the island speak with one voice in opposition to the violence. That would remove the spurious claim by Sinn Fein and the IRA to be descended from that period of Irish history and to speak in the name of the Irish people. That is the way to do it.
I know that I have strayed from the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to negotiate or to try to negotiate across the Floor of the House, but I want to make one last remark, which I mean sincerely. There is a remarkable chemistry within the political process in the north of Ireland which is waiting to be tapped. It could be used like a bunsen burner and be lost for ever, or it could be used in a distinctly positive way. The catalyst of the Canary wharf violence and the other violence that we have seen has in many ways, at least in terms of that chemistry, brought us closer together. We must not spoil the potential of that by any form of dogma, whether it be Government dogma, Unionist dogma or, dare I say it, SDLP dogma.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the whole House has been impressed by the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). He has spoken from the heart and his words have been pressed from his innermost being, and we accept that. It is always moving to be in the House when such a speech is made. I say that unreservedly and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that I say it sincerely.
Having listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said, however, and having listened to what has been, from a republican and nationalist, such an indictment of the IRA

and of Sinn Fein, the people whom I represent and the broad spectrum of Unionists, both the Protestant majority and the many Roman Catholics who are Unionists, will want to know what—if that very solemn indictment from the hon. Gentleman is so—his leader and Gerry Adams signed up to. That is the big question. We, as representatives elected to the House of Commons of this United Kingdom, have never been a party to what was signed up to, and it has all been kept carefully under wraps. It affects the destiny of my people and of the constituents of other hon. Members who are Unionist, but we do not know—we have never been told. Having listened to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, I am sure that Gerry Adams signed up to something which proposed, if not all that the hon. Gentleman said, then a great deal of it. That is what worries the people whom I represent.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh says that he stands by Mr. Bruton's statement that he will not hold talks with IRA-Sinn Fein until it says that it repudiates violence. I have been criticised—as has my party—for always taking that stance. Democrats cannot sit down with people who, if they do not agree with the end product of the negotiations, say, "We will take to the gun." That is exactly what lies at the heart of IRA-Sinn Fein. It says, "Yes, we want to sit at the table to discuss and negotiate, but if we do not agree with the agreement that is reached, we will go back to killing, mayhem and the bomb."
Let us look at what has taken place in the lead-up to the present situation. First, there was the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Hon. Members wondered why the Unionist population were so stirred at the time of the agreement, and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) told the Government to "face them down". It is all very well to call for talks, but the majority population in Northern Ireland were not consulted about the agreement.
I am glad that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at that time, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), is in the Chamber for this debate. The right hon. Gentleman was visited at the time by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux)—the then leader of the Ulster Unionists—and me. We asked why we, as the leaders of parties representing the majority Unionist population in the House of Commons, were not being briefed in the way in which the Dublin Government were briefing the SDLP on what was to come out of the talks. He said, "I take that on board, and I will come back to you." But he came back and said, "The answer is no—you are not going to be briefed," and we were not briefed.
Later, the two Governments met in conference and started to deal with internal matters. We were always told that the internal matters of Northern Ireland were a matter for this Parliament and for the people of Northern Ireland. Suddenly, we saw representatives from the Irish Republic dealing with matters that were solely internal affairs for Northern Ireland. That did not work, even though the Unionists were faced down, because one cannot rule a country when the majority is against it, and one cannot rule a country when a sizeable minority is armed against it. We know that, but you have to take people with you if you can. We then had the Downing Street declaration—principles which spelled out that in some way the whole of the people of Ireland would have the final setting of the stage. However, the people of Northern Ireland could give their consent.
I have listened to all the debates. Albert Reynolds said, "I want to make it perfectly clear that we are saying this at this juncture, but this does not mean that the people of Northern Ireland will always be allowed to have this particular power of consent." How did the Unionists react to that? The stage was set towards a united Ireland and then they got the framework document, which set the structures. There were no two choices in the framework document: there was one choice, one option—we were to go down the road of a united Ireland.
Perhaps hon. Members do not understand. They heard the emotional and moving speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that on the other side, in the hearts and in the depths of the majority of people of Northern Ireland, there is a determination that, come what may, they will never enter into a united Ireland: they are part of this kingdom, and they intend to remain part of this kingdom, but even if this kingdom should drive them forth, they will not accept a united Ireland. That is as deep in the hearts of those people as the statement that the hon. Gentleman made of his political faith tonight. It is deep, it is real, and it is part of what makes the Unionists tick.
Hon. Members should not say to the representatives of the majority, "You must sit down with men who have guns at the ready if they do not get what they want." Of course, we were accused of wanting the peace process to fail. No one would enjoy peace more than the majority representatives and the elected representatives from Northern Ireland. Do hon. Members think there is any pleasure to come through this stream, to be threatened, to see our children go off to school and not know whether they will be beaten, kicked or perhaps even killed? That is true of both sides of the divide. When I was in Stormont, Paddy Devlin spoke to me and said, "Yesterday, my boy was kicked and urinated on by IRA men on his way home from school." Hon. Members can understand how a father would feel about that. My wife, who served on the Belfast city council and who voted against the rise in the rents of houses, went to a housing estate and was stoned. Those things are an everyday occurrence with politicians and we all know it. We are all under threat, so it is no pleasure to us.
I have grieved tonight about what has happened and I echo what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said. We and the people of Northern Ireland do not judge the ordinary people of this mainland. We are with them in their tragedy. We weep with those who weep, sorrow with those who sorrow and enter into their real fears. No one in Northern Ireland is saying, "Slap it into them—they need to get what we've got." We do not want anyone to have to go through the dark valley that Ulster has gone through—God forbid it—but there are evil men in the community in Northern Ireland and infiltrated into the community here and they are determined that they will have their pound of flesh. They think that they are going to teach this United Kingdom a lesson.
After the ceasefire, the IRA published a very interesting document. It is private and was intended to be secret, but my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) seems to have a wonderful way of getting such documents. It reveals the IRA mind. It states that
Hume is the only SDLP person on the horizon strong enough to face the challenge.

That writes out the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. As for his companion, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who is sitting beside him, he is not even mentioned, which is understandable as he was the man who defeated Gerry Adams and he could hardly expect any laurels for that.
The document also states:
Dublin's coalition is the strongest government in 25 years or more. Reynolds has no historical baggage to hinder him and knows how popular such a consensus would be among grassroots.
There is potentially a very powerful American lobby not in hock to any particular party in Ireland or Britain.
Clinton is perhaps the first US president in decades to be substantially influenced by such a lobby.
At this time the British government is the least popular in the EU with other EU members.
It is the first time in 25 years that all the major Irish nationalist parties are rowing in roughly the same direction.
It states that "these combined circumstances" are unlikely to come again in the foreseeable future, so the hour has come. The ceasefire and the so-called peace strategy—that is mentioned in the document, which states that the organisation of an "anti-British" peace strategy must be the priority—have all come to pass and the IRA thinks that this is an hour of weakness. It may be an hour of weakness in a political sense, but it is the hour of the people of Ulster's greatest strength: they have resolved within their hearts that they will not be bombed, bullied, bulleted or battered to a table to discuss their future with the men of violence—who will go back to that violence if they do not get their way.
I am glad that my party will meet members of the Social Democratic and Labour party this week. I hope that as we sit down at that table we shall be able to see exactly where the parts of the community divide and where there may be some common ground. The only hope for Northern Ireland is in the principles of democracy. If those principles are put into action at this time, we can leave aside those who will not go the way of democracy but choose the way of violence: they will be taken care of by the rising tide in the community that the day has come to say goodbye to those who want violence and to welcome those who stand for a solution which can come about through democracy and the ballot box.
I welcome the legislation because it is a signal to the men of violence that the Government will not weaken in their fight. I trust that it will be taken in that manner across the United Kingdom—as a signal that this Parliament, this Government and this people are determined to see the battle through so that real peace, based on the principles of democracy, can come about. I hope that that peace will soon be born.

Mr. McNamara: In the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), the House witnessed the intensity of feeling and sense of identity that belongs to both gentlemen and to the communities that they represent. Their words illustrated to the House the necessity of seeking to find an accommodation that is based on both communities and is acceptable to both communities.
It must therefore be an agreement that does not talk in terms of majority and minority, but recognises the traditions, aspirations and hopes of each of those


communities. That, I trust, is what the Prime Ministers of both countries will talk about when they have their summit, whenever that may be. I hope that it will also form the content of what the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will discuss when they talk to the leaders of the various parties in the House. That means that there must not be triumphalism on either side, but there must be compromise on each side. One side must regard and respect the Britishness of the other and the other side must regard and respect the Irishness of the other. That should be the aim of the policies that we are seeking to achieve.
That is the important message that we must take from what my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh and the hon. Member for North Antrim—who has been my hon. Friend on occasions—have said. I think that the hon. Member for North Antrim and I are the only two Members of the House who took part in the first debate on the emergency powers Act and served on the Committee together.
The leader of the Ulster Unionists referred to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who now has the honour of leading for the Opposition on Northern Ireland. He was derogatory to both of us. Both of us have advanced the principles and policies of the British Labour party, laid down at Labour party conferences and enunciated by a great number of shadow Secretaries of State from the Front Bench long before I had a position there.
The reason why we have, in the past, opposed the Act and measures in it was not that we did not think that there was a problem of dealing with terrorists in Northern Ireland—far from it. We opposed the Act because we felt that the mechanisms and measures contained in it were not necessarily the most productive means of dealing with the problem.
Taking away someone's right to jury trial is a serious matter. We looked for a way of reinstating it in a more positive manner. The indefinite internment of people without trial is a serious matter. We sought to take that power away, because in the past it had been used only against one section of the community. Those are the reasons why the Labour party, over the years, has opposed those powers. They are not the selfish possessions of myself or of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, but the principled reasons of the British Labour party.
The Secretary of State made a number of interesting comments on the current situation. I should like to make one point very loud and very clear. Neither the Prime Minister, the British Government nor anyone else can be used as an excuse by anyone for what happened at Canary wharf last week or at the Aldwych last night. The only group responsible for the carnage, the deaths, the woundings and the terrible loss of property is the Provisional IRA. It is spurious to seek excuses in the way in which the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister handled the negotiations, and no justification whatever.
The essence of democracy is that one has to deal with situations as one finds them. As the Secretary of State was keen to point out, he had the support of my Front-Bench colleagues for his policies—especially for decommissioning, which was one of the reasons why I parted company with my Front-Bench colleagues. I parted company with them because I thought that it was a foolish policy. I never thought that there would ever be any decommissioning. It was wrong to pursue it.
Equally, however, the Secretary of State, by a sleight of hand tonight, has tried to suggest that he accepted the Mitchell proposals. The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and did not accept them. He foisted upon the House elections that came from one of the confidence-building measures and went on to say that he accepted the six principles, but the main thrust of Mitchell's first and main recommendation was for talks to start and then for there to be progress on decommissioning.
The Prime Minister sought to pre-empt that recommendation and the report in precisely the same way that the Government sought to pre-empt the Scott report. Sadly, that is water under the bridge, but we cannot allow it to be said that the Government were pursuing a perfect set of negotiations, because they were not. Before the bomb, there had been a divergence of view between our Government and that of the Republic on the best way forward for the talks. It is important that that should be put on record.

Mr. Maginnis: Even if it is untrue and inaccurate.

Mr. McNamara: If I want untruths and inaccuracies, I shall always come to the hon. Gentleman, because he can put them forward far better than anyone else.
My point is that a lot of that is now water under the bridge and we have a serious and difficult situation. I do not believe that our Government should in any way negotiate with IRA-Sinn Fein at ministerial level while it is engaged in any sort of campaign of violence. However, there is great urgency for the two Governments to get together as soon as possible, to iron out their differences and work together. Real progress in Northern Ireland has been made only when the two sovereign Governments have been marching forward together, not when there has been divergence between them.
I do not wish to end on an antagonistic note, but I believe that another veto has been operating throughout the peace process—that of the Ulster Unionists. They were not prepared to accept the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they pick and choose the bits in the Downing Street declaration that they like—their position on that is typical—and they have not accepted the framework document. If we are to succeed in this endeavour, we must return to—

Mr. Maginnis: We accepted the Mitchell report.

Madam Speaker: Order. There are too many interventions from the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) from a sedentary position.

Mr. McNamara: The problem with the hon. Gentleman is that his charm is exceeded only by his beauty. The same goes for the remarks that he makes from a sedentary position.
The position of the Ulster Unionist party has caused some problems. It, too, has exercised a veto over the discussions and it has used its position very skilfully to extract concession after concession from the Government. That is where I believe that the Secretary of State has gone wrong.

Mr. Maginnis: List them.

Mr. McNamara: I shall list the concessions for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: I shall either list the concessions or give way. I think that I shall list them and, if there is time, I shall then give way—although the Secretary of State may wish to reply to the debate.
A Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs has been established. Its formation was denied by all parties in this place—both Government and Opposition—until the Maastricht vote, and then it came about. The Ulster Unionists have been offered a Northern Ireland Grand Committee and they have achieved progress on their integration policies, as more and more legislation that we pass in the House covers Northern Ireland, when in the past there were separate Orders in Council or separate legislation.
I believe that further concessions will be made to the Ulster Unionist party. For example, the Government gave way to its demands for elections—without consulting the Irish Government or other parties in this place—because they need the Unionist vote. The Secretary of State will receive the Opposition's support when he behaves correctly; that has been made very clear. However, the power of the Ulster Unionists comes into play on other issues, and that fact must be recognised. That takes me back to where I began.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: No. The hon. Gentleman has had his say and he has nattered away during my speech. I shall now finish my nattering.
The deputy leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, and the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for North Antrim, epitomise the nature of the problem. I believe that we have a duty to try to help the two communities to come together and reach an accommodation that will recognise the Irishness of the nationalists and the Britishness of the loyalists.

Mr. Maginnis: I wish to comment on some of the fairly blatant inaccuracies that we have heard in the past few minutes. It is rather peculiar that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does not recognise that the Ulster Unionist party accepted the Downing Street declaration and that Sinn Fein did not. The Ulster Unionist party accepted the Mitchell commission report in total, as a package, without picking and choosing various elements from it. I had the privilege of being the first to speak live to the cameras after Senator George Mitchell delivered his report. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I said, "I welcome, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party, the Mitchell commission report. We

accept it, as a package; we believe that it should not be picked over, with parts chosen and parts discarded. If every party does that, it will lose its usefulness."
Sinn Fein did not accept the Mitchell report.

Mr. McNamara: Quite right.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman agrees that it was quite right. He has just told me that it was quite right.

Mr. McNamara: I was saying that the hon. Gentleman was quite right.

Mr. Maginnis: I am usually quite right vis-à-vis what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
More important, Sinn Fein-IRA sat for almost a year with every other nationalist party in Ireland. They sat in what was called the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and at the end of that, the forum brought forth a report—about a fortnight ago. That report by and large picked up the elements of the Downing Street declaration—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) wish to finish, or may we move on to the Northern Ireland order?

Mr. Maginnis: You are very tolerant, Madam Speaker. I have literally one sentence.

Madam Speaker: I hope so.

Mr. Maginnis: It is to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the one dissenting voice in what was mainly a pan-nationalist forum was Sinn Fein-IRA. I do not use the word pan-nationalist in this case in any derogatory sense, but Sinn Fein was the one party that could not agree with the other nationalist parties in Ireland. That is the party for which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North wants to make excuse after excuse in the House.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with accusing me of making excuses for a party that supports murder and violence.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing parliamentarian in the House. He knows that that is not a point of order; it is a point of argument and a point of debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

Madam Speaker: It might be helpful if I make it clear at this stage that debate on this order may of course cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Of course, police and security are the principal excluded subjects.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise expenditure of £96 million in the 1995–96 spring supplementary estimates. That will bring total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to £6,238 million for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the vote-on-account of £2,821 million for 1996–97. That will enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1996–97 main estimates are brought before the House later this year. I remind the House, as you have done, Madam Speaker, that the draft order does not cover expenditure by the Northern Ireland Office on law and order and other services.
Details of the sums sought are given in the estimates booklet and the "Statement of Sums Required on Account" which, as usual, are available in the Vote Office. I now turn to the estimates.
In the Department of Agriculture's vote 1, which covers expenditure on national agriculture and fisheries support measures, a net increase of £1.1 million is required. About £1.5 million is required for capital grant commitments, £1.3 million of which relates to the farm and conservation grant scheme. Those increases are partially offset by savings in other areas. In the Department's vote 2, covering local support measures, a net increase of £1.1 million is sought.
Turning to the Department of Economic Development, a token increase of £1,000 is sought in vote 1. Some £3.5 million is for the provision of land and buildings by the Industrial Development Board to meet additional expenditure on factories for recent inward investment projects. Some £6 million is for selective assistance to industry, mainly to meet claims made under existing offers to major inward investment projects. Those increases reflect the board's continuing success in attracting international competitive companies to Northern Ireland. The increases are offset by increased receipts and reduced requirements elsewhere in the vote.
In the Department of Economic Development vote 3, a net increase of some £1.6 million is sought by the Training and Employment Agency. The major requirement is £6 million to meet increasing claims under the company development programme. Partial offsetting savings have been declared elsewhere in the vote, to reduce the additional requirements to £1.6 million.
For the Department of the Environment, a net increase of some £6.5 million is sought in vote 1. Some £2.8 million is for compensation payments and capital grants to Northern Ireland railways. Those increases are partially offset by increased receipts.
In vote 2, covering housing, a net increase of some £3 million is sought, mainly to provide assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and some £6.8 million is to provide private sector housing renovation grants. That increase is partially offset by the reallocation of some £2.8 million in housing grant and by additional receipts from housing associations. Gross housing expenditure in Northern Ireland this year is now expected to be about £599 million, an increase of £25 million over 1994–95.
In vote 3, covering water and sewerage services, a net increase of some £2.1 million is sought. Additional expenditure of some £4 million, mainly required for operational, new construction and improvement work, has been offset by a reduction of some £2 million on water and sewerage administration. In vote 4, which covers environmental and other services, a net increase of some £0.2 million is sought. In vote 5, covering office and general accommodation, £8.2 million is for new public building works, alterations and purchases.
I now turn to the Department of Education, where a net increase of some £8.3 million is sought in vote 1. That includes some £7.1 million for grants to education and library boards, mainly for maintenance, minor works, frost damage and replacement buses. Some £1.4 million is for voluntary schools, mainly for health and safety works.
I turn next to the Department of Health and Social Services, where a net increase of £17.6 million is sought in vote 1. That includes £26.1 million for hospital, community health and personal social services and family health services revenue, and £1.9 million for capital expenditure. Those increases are offset by increased receipts and a reduction of £7.1 million in the centrally financed services.
In vote 3, additional net provision of £5.3 million is required, due to a decrease in receipts of £6.8 million, most of which relates to recoupments from the national insurance fund in respect of administration costs, and an increase in funding for the centrally financed miscellaneous health and personal social services of £2.8 million. Those increases are offset by reductions of £4.3 million elsewhere in the vote.
In vote 4, which covers social security, £29 million is sought. That is due mainly to a greater than anticipated demand for disability benefits—in particular attendance, invalid care and disability living allowances. That is offset by decreases in income support and family credit.
Finally, £5.3 million is sought in vote 5, due mainly to increased expenditure on rent allowance and rates rebates. Those increases are partially offset by reduced requirements elsewhere in the vote.
In addition to the aforementioned increases, provision has been included within individual votes under the European Union special support programme for peace and reconciliation. European funding has been provided initially for a three-year period, from 1995 to 1997, with further funding for two years up to 1999, subject to review. Northern Ireland has been allocated £200 million which, together with 25 per cent. matching funding, brings the total value of the programme in Northern Ireland to some £266 million. Both the European funding and the matching funding will be fully additional.
In my opening remarks, I drew attention to the main provisions of the order. In replying to the debate, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for


Devizes (Mr. Ancram), will eagerly respond to the points raised by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Jim Dowd: I sympathise with the Minister. It has been a long day, but at least he knows that we are more than halfway through it. He rattled through a great range of numbers, and as the order is principally a financial measure, the House should examine a few of them. The debate provides an opportunity for Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies to raise issues, and as a significant number of them are present, I shall be brief.
The order is part of the Government's projections for expenditure from 1996–97 to 1998–99 arising from the Budget statement. We welcome several of its provisions. I hesitate to say it, but some sleight of hand is involved. I do not know whether there is less to the order than appears at first glance, or more, but I hope to tease out from the Minister which it is.
Although there is no reduction in the emphasis on targeting social needs and no offset of the additional funding expected from the peace and reconciliation initiative and the EU money that was mentioned, the figures, of which the measure represents the first tranche, suggest that there will be a reduction in real terms over the next two or three years. Most of the provisions are welcome, but they should be viewed against the need to consolidate the opportunities for economic development that have arisen in Northern Ireland recently—and the need to expand the economy by some 6 per cent. if a net 60,000 jobs are to be provided.
Although the recent developments that we discussed earlier are deeply troubling, it is the will of all Members to ensure that the work that has been done to bring normality to the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland continues, and that it is not another victim of the callous brutality of the Provisional IRA.
I would be grateful if, in his reply to the debate, the Minister would say whether the priorities established in the expenditure review in early December after the Chancellor's Budget statement have been changed by developments in the past 10 days or so since the South Quay outrage. I understand that he cannot say too much, but perhaps he can inform the House whether the welcome shift anticipated by the expenditure review is likely be reversed.
The overall increase in expenditure is some 2.5 per cent., but when the increased social security costs are taken into account, the figure drops to below 1 per cent., which, as all Members will know, represents a cut in real terms. When that is considered together with the switch from security spending to industrial development, it places greater pressure on the targeting of social needs expenditure, and the health, housing and education budgets. It is fundamentally wrong, therefore, for the Government to rely on more expenditure in that sector to create sufficient wealth and jobs to improve the lot of the socially deprived.
I should refer to one of the most alarming proposals in this year's order—the implied 20 to 30 per cent. cut in the action for community employment programme. There

is widespread concern in all parts of Northern Ireland about the possible effects—up to 3,000 jobs could be lost. I asked a parliamentary question to try to elicit further information about the ACE programme, to find out the expenditure on individual organisations for the years between 1994 and 1997, and to learn how many people are employed by each body.
I was disappointed to receive an answer telling me that such detailed information was not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I should have thought that such figures were first-line information for the Training and Employment Agency in its dealings with the ACE programme.
There has been a welcome decline in unemployment in Northern Ireland in recent years, but it remains the area of the United Kingdom with the highest unemployment, especially long-term unemployment; and unemployment there is well above the EU average. Anything that jeopardises progress on this front is a matter of justifiable concern to all involved.
Although it has been said that the community work programme will be given more emphasis, the evidence is that it is nothing like as successful as the ACE programme has been. There is anxiety about the quality of community work programme training and experience, for instance.
Another worrying aspect of this affair is that the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action has been deeply critical of the fact that it was not even consulted about the proposal to reduce the ACE programme.
The Minister mentioned EU special funds. Can he confirm that they remain, and will remain, additional beyond this year; and that the Government do not intend to make them "instead of" as opposed to "as well as"?
There is also widespread concern in Northern Ireland about the lack of speed and the method involved in the distribution of the special funds, and having them committed to the purposes for which they were intended.
I appreciate the Minister's comments on the support for local authorities, but he will know that some of the rate rises projected for Northern Ireland are severe, to put it mildly: 8.9 per cent. in Coleraine, 9.5 per cent. in Banbridge, 7.2 per cent. in Down, and 12.2 per cent. in Newry. The figure rises to 27 per cent. in Castlereagh—a staggering figure. Even though the Government have estimated that projected increases for the rest of the United Kingdom will be above inflation, some of the projected figures for Northern Ireland are extremely worrying, and, if realised, will impose a considerable burden on many householders.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking strictly about local council rates. Is he aware that the Department has increased regional rates, without capping them, over the years?

Mr. Dowd: Indeed so. I am not certain whether the Government have yet announced the projected increases in regional rates—I suspect that they are due imminently—but they too will be well above the rate of inflation, partly owing to the disproportionate impact of the Government's landfill tax on local authorities in Northern Ireland, which are peculiarly dependent on this


method of refuse disposal. That localised impact has not been adequately considered by the Government.
The Government will be aware of their report showing that the major part of the road-building programme was undertaken in the 1960s, and that those roads are now reaching the end of their useful life. Nothing in the figures suggests adequate expenditure to cover that fact. Infrastructure is important—not just in Northern Ireland, but across the country—given what the Minister was able to say about attracting inward investment. The infrastructure and the roads are a key element of that, because it is difficult to see how one can achieve as much from inward investment without the infrastructure.
We welcome what progress has been made in housing recently, although that progress has taken place against the backdrop of increases in waiting lists, which now have more than 22,000 people on them. I urge the Department to put less effort into breaking the Housing Executive into housing associations and more into allowing it to build and rehabilitate homes in Northern Ireland. That would be to everyone's benefit, although I know that the Government are determined to decrease central Government control.
We recognise that the position in Northern Ireland is acutely difficult, because local authorities do not have the same rights and responsibilities as those in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, we do not necessarily believe that the best way to deal with that is to move power away to semi-selective quangos, whether housing associations or other organisations.
The Minister will be aware that a recent report showed that some £114 million needs to be spent to bring school buildings up to standard. Clearly, it would be wholly unreasonable to expect that amount to be committed in one year, but the report shows that a large programme of work needs to be done to the fabric of schools in Northern Ireland. I would appreciate any information about how the Government intend to deal with that.
I would also appreciate any information that the Minister might have about if, when, whether and how the Government's proposals for nursery vouchers might be extended to Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): The hon. Gentleman has given us quite a shopping list of what he would like to spend money on. Can he explain where, if he was in our position, the money would come from?

Mr. Dowd: We would run the Government more efficiently, and we could do a thousand and one things that the Government are not doing.
If the Minister wants me to give figures now, his question was a reasonable try, but he must try harder. He knows the position. My understanding of the matter, weak and flimsy as it may be, is that the Government are responsible for the order before the House tonight, and my questions are about the order. A simple trawl of replies, especially to oral questions, from Ministers, and of questions from Conservative Back Benchers, would show that they are more concerned about what the Labour party will do than about the responsibilities of the Government.

The Chamber was and remains established to call the Government to account for their proposals and what they will do about the information supplied by Departments.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Perhaps he did not understand my question, but I am sure that he realises that resources in Northern Ireland are allocated from a block, which is based on a formula. If more money were spent on one area of the block, it would have to come from another area. Can the hon. Gentleman explain, given his shopping list, from which areas of the block he would take money?

Mr. Dowd: The short answer is that I am not prepared to run around giving alternatives. Moreover, we are taking far too much time from Northern Ireland Members in engaging in a petty party political squabble, and I do not intend to devote much more time to it.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: That's okay, then.

Mr. Dowd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I shall not go into the issues arising from the trusts and shadow trusts, many of which will come into existence in the next couple of weeks, but a specific problem has been brought to my attention, and, I am sure, to that of hon. Members representing rural parts of Northern Ireland. It concerns changes to GP dispensing arrangements, which—owing to various modifications to qualifications—now threaten the prospects of many small GPs in such areas.
For instance, the nearest overland station to a practice in Roselea, in Fermanagh, is some 30 miles away, and the GP there informs me that, unless GPs in such areas can use the funds they received under the previous formula, their future is threatened.

Rev. William McCrea: We have the same problem with the Coagh dispensary. It is vital for doctors in that surgery to be able to dispense medicines. May we join forces in asking the Minister to take the problem on board? What GPs, the people and elected representatives are saying must be heard.

Mr. Dowd: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that. I have heard from people in Fermanagh, Antrim, Down and elsewhere. It is a widespread problem, which also threatens the quality of care available to those furthest away from urban areas. GPs have approached me with detailed representations, demonstrating that the people involved are not given to complaining and have a genuine problem. It is not so great a problem in the short term, but, when GPs retire, it is highly likely that replacements will go by the board and local services will suffer.
The Minister mentioned costs to the water authority. Will he assure me that no money is being spent on preparations for privatisation—that the Government have seen the light after the debacle of electricity privatisation, and have noted the overwhelming opposition to water privatisation in Northern Ireland?
I have no time to ask the Minister about an extension to the dangerous wild animals legislation, but he will know of the ridiculous events in the recent past.


Huge amounts of police time have been taken up to no particular purpose; the matter really ought to be sorted out far more efficiently.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Wide-ranging debates such as this always give Northern Ireland Members an excellent opportunity to raise issues that our constituents regularly ask us to raise in the House.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I zigzag across the elements in the order. The first matter that I wish to raise relates to local government, and, in particular, to section 72 of the 1973 Northern Ireland local government measure: it concerns the provision of a loans pool. Local authorities in other parts of the United Kingdom are empowered to borrow money in advance at the most attractive rate, provided that they can identify a need for those funds, in future years, within their budgetary requirements.
I had hoped that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) would be here to support me, because he is aware of the attempts that I and my council made to raise the matter with the Department and to seek permission to establish and operate a loans pool. Despite numerous approaches to the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of the Environment, the matter still remains unresolved. Last year, Castlereagh borough council appointed consultants in the City of London to advise on the management of its capital borrowings. To operate its finances efficiently, it was advised that the establishment of a loans pool and the ability to borrow in advance of requirement was essential. Yet we do not appear to be able to get that matter sorted out from within the Northern Ireland Departments. The delays in obtaining the necessary approvals are hindering the council from obtaining finance at favourable interest rates, and as a result it is not achieving the savings that were expected.
The Under-Secretary of State who has responsibility for the Department of the Environment told the council that his Department was preparing a model loans fund scheme for adoption by district councils in Northern Ireland. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to ask his colleague why it is taking such a long time. It appears to us that there is considerable foot-dragging. I believe that councils in Northern Ireland should enjoy the same privileges as councils on the mainland.
I raise two issues that relate to the Department of Economic Development. The first, naturally, relates to the problems faced by Shorts, which is in my constituency and which had a major contract with Fokker, the Dutch aircraft manufacturer, to supply wings for the Fokker 100/70 jetliner programme. As hon. Members will be aware, the Daimler-Benz board has ceased to give financial support to Fokker, and that has thrown the company into crisis. If Shorts loses that customer, between 1,000 and 1,500 jobs could be lost. Economists have indicated that the knock-on effect could result in the loss of some 3,000 jobs in the Province as a whole. Shorts is not simply looking at Fokker as a customer; it has a special relationship with Shorts in that it has a partnership arrangement. Not only does it have what might be described as a profit-sharing arrangement, but it has a risk

partnership. Therefore, from Shorts' point of view, the potential exists for considerable loss if the contract with Fokker falls.
I believe that the Dutch Government have been proactive in the matter and have given time and space for Fokker to try to put together an arrangement whereby it can stay in business, at least in part. Happily, one proposition that I raised recently with my right hon. Friend the Minister and with the Prime Minister was the possibility of Bombardier buying out Fokker. That seems a sensible option not only for Fokker but especially for Shorts.
What investigation has been made by my right hon. Friend's colleague, who has been very active in the Department of Economic Development? The Minister has been in regular contact on this issue. It appears to me that there are many areas where it was recognised that Fokker was carrying out work at an unproductive level, and where the costs were much higher than they would have been if the work had been carried out in Northern Ireland by Shorts. What assistance can the Government give to Bombardier, provided, of course, that part of the contract work that is currently being carried out by Fokker is put into Shorts, where it can be done at lower cost, which benefits not only Shorts in terms of jobs but Fokker and Bombardier?
It would be a nice end to the story if the removal of the threat of 1,500 job losses at Shorts, and as many outside it, led to a gain in jobs as a result of more work coming to Shorts. I am eager to have a response from the Minister on that issue.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) referred to the substantial cut in funding for the action for community employment scheme. Although I do not despise today's announcement that £2 million is being put back into the scheme, it is small beer in terms of the loss that is expected. I have had a series of communications from groups within my constituency, such as community development groups, charities, including Action Cancer, victim support groups, citizens advice bureaux and many others, all expressing real concern about the impact of the cut. They believe that it will become impossible for them to maintain their present services for people within my constituency and that many of the services will have to be withdrawn entirely.
The ACE schemes have provided a worthwhile opportunity for people to gain skills; they have taken people out of the unemployment pool and they have given them a sense of belonging to society. It was remarkable for the Government to decide that they would cut the funding to the most vulnerable section of the employment pool. We see all the hype about the prospects of new jobs coming into Northern Ireland in a new atmosphere. How many investors are required to come to Northern Ireland to take up the slack that will result from the loss of jobs arising from the cut in funding for the ACE schemes? It will be difficult to fill that gap.

Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend accept that the feelings of his constituents concerning the cut in the ACE programme are shared by people in the rest of the Province? Having spoken to many other Northern Ireland Members, I feel that something urgent must be done and that the £2 million, although welcome, will not meet the concern felt throughout the Province.

Mr. Robinson: I accept that entirely. I know that in the unemployment black spot of Mid-Ulster—in Strabane and that general region—where there is high unemployment, the cut will be felt strongly.
I express criticism about the heavy cuts in the health service. I had the sad responsibility of meeting a family whose mother had required hospitalisation as the result of a heart condition. When the family contacted the hospital, a cardiac team rushed to the home and gave immediate assistance. The team determined quickly that it was essential that the lady be taken into hospital. They rang the Ulster hospital at Dundonald, to be told that there were no beds. They then tried desperately, for the next 90 minutes, to find any other hospital in the Belfast area that could provide a bed for this chronically ill patient. None of them could do so. It was only after ringing the Ulster hospital at Dundonald again that a bed was made available for the patient.
I accept immediately that the cardiac service was there and that it gave attention to the patient at all times. However, the House will recognise that a patient with a heart condition who is left for an hour and a half not knowing whether a bed will be found becomes very anxious—the very condition that is least required for somebody who has a heart problem. In my view, financial cuts are destroying what was a very good health service in Northern Ireland, and are driving the caring and professional doctors, nurses and staff almost to despair. I find more and more when I meet hospital staff that morale is very low and that they have great fears for the future.
I have had a number of difficulties in my constituency in recent years where people have been given the wrong advice on pensions over the telephone, and have taken decisions based on that advice. When it is later discovered that they have been given the wrong advice, everybody washes their hands and no one wants to do anything about it. In one such case, the official information given in writing to a constituent of mine never advised her of her rights and entitlements in relation to the matter that she raised. She is now getting 25 per cent. less per week as a result of receiving bad advice. The Government must face up to the issue. If someone gives incorrect advice in the name of the Government, they should make sure that the person involved is not penalised in the long run. I would ask the Government to introduce a system to ensure that those who suffer in that way do not do so permanently, and that any loss suffered is given back in compensation.
I was a little surprised to hear the positive remarks of the Minister and of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West on housing, because the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's house-building programme is almost non-existent. When I ask housing managers for essential work to be done in my constituency, I am always told that money is not available and that schemes are being put off and long-fingered.
One of the areas of greatest difficulty is home improvement grants. I know of people who have been waiting for three, four or five years for a decision from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. It seems that the Housing Executive pulls out of the air any excuse to put off making a decision—it is "looking for more details" or carrying out all sorts of "tests of resources". I had an unfortunate case in my constituency when a young couple purchased a house in 1993 because they intended to get married in September 1994. When it got close to that date, it was obvious that the Northern Ireland

Housing Executive would not be able to provide the grant that would allow the couple to have their home ready for their wedding, and they had to postpone it.
Some hon. Members might think that that poor man had been saved for at least a time, but—whatever his personal position may be—he is still waiting for his house to be properly refurbished. After all this time, it surely must be possible for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to decide on whether this person can get a grant. In many cases, by the time a grant is paid, the condition of the house is much worse and the original estimates are no longer realistic.
In relation to the assessments, there is considerable concern that the test of resources can change during the period of waiting. I had constituents who, in March 1994, had their contribution assessed at £3,076. By October 1995, the contribution was assessed at £6,664.22, more than double the original assessment. Their total income increased by £27, they ended up in a new band and they had to pay an additional £3,600—all for the privilege of a £27 increase in their income. If the matter had been dealt with properly and speedily, they would not have been faced with that problem.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is bracing himself because he knows that my final point relates to the Department of Education—his Department—and to Belmont primary school. A delegation from the school—including the headmistress and the board of governors—and I visited the Minister, and he also visited the school. Approximately 250 pupils attend Belmont primary school, which was built in 1890—not 1690, but it is none the worse for that—and it requires urgent work and a major extension. The Department accepts the case for a new building, but there are serious delays.
The building is currently in a bad state of repair: no one is allowed to use the upper floor, and there are difficulties with the electricity, with wet rot and with leaking in the ceiling. The staff use the staff room at their own risk. The Presbyterian church has been used in the past because the school was closed as a result of the need for repair. The overall wiring of the school is of concern—for example, one cannot turn on all the computers at one time. There are three classrooms in a row, with the one in the centre not having a separate exit. If there is a fire, the children will have to make their way out through the other classrooms.
It is clear that there is a major need for new premises. The dining room and the toilets are in a different part of the site. The children have to go out of their current portable cabins or out of the old building, cross a playground and go into these facilities, which are small and inadequate. The headmistress has an office that is smaller than a prison cell—I would have been happy if my headmaster had had such a small office, because he would not have been able to swing a cane in it—and is not satisfactory. The Department of Education must provide finance for a new school for Belmont.
The Minister recently made an announcement concerning the new starts list for 1996–97. I was disappointed that Belmont was not included on the list, but I will not be so churlish as to fail to thank the Minister because Grosvenor high school was on the list—clearly, there was a need there. The Minister accepts that there is a real need for Belmont primary school.
The school was disturbed to receive a letter from the Belfast education and library board, which said that the Minister cannot take a decision on Belmont primary school because the necessary work has not been completed to the stage necessary for him to take such a decision. According to the Belfast education and library board, the delay appears to be within the Minister's Department. The communication says that the Belmont project is the Belfast board's second priority. If Belmont is its second priority, I would like the Minister to tell me what its first priority is, because I cannot think of any school in the Greater Belfast area that is in greater need of new accommodation than Belmont primary school.
The letter goes on to say that the initial economic appraisal has been submitted to the Department, that that has been expanded to meet the Department's requirement for additional options and a detailed design study cannot be commissioned until approval is given to the appraisal. Finally, it states that work cannot start on site until new-start approval is issued.
Belfast education and library board is being held back because approval has not been given to the appraisal that was submitted. I hope to have the opportunity to speak to the Minister about this case. I would be pleased if, by then, he could determine what stage the appraisal is at and whether it could go back to the board to be put on its list of priorities.
If there are designs floating around for Belmont primary school, would it not be a good idea for some information to be given to the school? It is most unhelpful when the headmistress and the board of governors do not have any idea what appraisal the Minister is having to look at. They do not know what the board's proposal is—whether it is for an extension, whether the existing school is being knocked down, or whether it is for a new building on the same site. Surely that information can be given to the primary school.
I hope that, in a year's time when the Minister announces the new starts for the following year, he will have Belmont primary school at the top of his list, if he does not find some slippage in the intervening period and feel able to give approval before that.

Sir James Molyneaux: I have no means of knowing whether the Chair has arranged for Lord Nolan to sit in on the debate, and if so, whether he can blow a whistle so that anyone who appears to have an interest in the matters under discussion can be forewarned.
In a way, all of us are bound to have financial interests somewhere in the 11 pages of this order. I am distinctly nervous when it comes to the mention of retirement pensions. I am less anxious about the case for maternity benefits. Younger colleagues, who have served and are serving their apprenticeship in this House consumed with the burning ambition to progress to higher things, might be concerned over the mention of £163,000 for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
As time is pressing, I shall resist the temptation to deal with specific matters, but will consider the wider picture as it would affect any Government. I hope that that may appeal to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), who spoke for the Opposition.
Northern Ireland appropriation order debates should not be allowed to give the impression that Northern Ireland is an obscure colony. It is an integral part of the United Kingdom and this appropriation order confirms that. It merely authorises the allocation of funds made available by Her Majesty's Treasury, which, in turn, derives that money throughout the United Kingdom by unitary taxation, as it is applied to all four constituent parts of the kingdom.
The advantages of belonging impose matching responsibilities. While we represent Northern Ireland and have a right to suggest how the total sum should be spent, we do not have the right to demand reckless expenditure which, if it were repeated in England, Scotland and Wales, would jeopardise the nation's finances and devalue the currency, whatever the complexion of the Government in power. In that regard, our parliamentary party has been consistent since its inception in 1974.
In my modest contribution to the debate on the reply to the Gracious Speech in November last year, I reiterated our principles: no fixed exchange rates, which has incidentally become a very popular view in the interval since I made that speech in early November; resumed repayment of the national debt; maintaining the Government's excellent record on low inflation; a steady reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement; and, support for the Chancellor's carefully phased cuts in interest rates. The Chancellor was on the Front Bench that day and he seemed to approve. Although I am a modest man with much to be modest about, I like to think that perhaps I had some influence on his decisions when he was finalising the Budget that he presented the following week.
With regard to the broad sweep of funds granted by the Treasury, the Minister may find it useful to explain more fully the impact of the so-called peace dividend. Savings resulting from what has been called the temporary cessation of military operations will have been reflected to some extent in part I of the order. Part II will presumably reflect certain reductions in public expenditure in keeping with the Government's policy of sound money, with which we do not greatly disagree. That means a reduction in the budgets of various sectors such as housing and hospitals. The authorities in those sectors managed—but only just—to avoid swingeing reductions in plans for this year and next year.
However, with the rolling resumption of terrorism, the peace dividend will have disappeared. There will inevitably be an increase in security-related expenditure throughout the United Kingdom—bearing proportionately on Northern Ireland. I am not referring to the costs of security forces because they are not contained in the order.
I am asking for an assurance that as security-related expenditure rises, the Government will regard that as a regrettable extra and will not be tempted to raid from the Northern Ireland budget the already reduced funds allocated to the Departments for the year 1996–97. Will it be accepted that, although the Northern Ireland Departments will do their best to cope with cuts in the coming year, they simply could not function if further cuts were made in their budgets for 1997 and the remaining years of the decade?
Paragraph 4(2) makes the rigid requirement that any money borrowed, with interest due, must be repaid not later than 31 March 1997. I make that point because, on


1 November 1995, in a Committee debate on the financial provisions order, I referred to the flexibility that the order gave in the dates for the repayment of loans by various organisations in Northern Ireland. It was explained by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who was acting for the Government on that day, that a rigid repayment date could sometimes impose an administrative burden on organisations such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. On that occasion, the Committee could see the sense in that proposal and it unanimously approved the order. The question arises in my mind: why is the Department of Finance and Personnel, in this appropriation order, denying itself the flexibility that it accorded to others in the financial provisions order?
I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt wish to deal with the activities of some of the departmental votes, but I wish to concentrate on the financial aspects of the Department of Economic Development listed on page 8, in vote 3. I want to focus on the enterprise and investment scheme that was introduced by the Government in the 1993 Budget to provide for a new equity investment in unquoted trading companies by outside individuals, "outside" in that case meaning persons not connected with the company, such as employees and shareholders with more than 30 per cent. of the capital.
Despite the fact that various tax reliefs are available to investors, only about 200 companies have benefited in the two years of the scheme's existence throughout the entire United Kingdom. Potential small companies have not noticed that whereas various forms of support are restricted to manufacturing industry, which has always been a sore point, this scheme has benefited service industry companies, including retail and wholesale distribution companies, hotels and restaurants. That has always been a much-despised sector, but it has chalked up assets of £8 billion throughout the United Kingdom in the last full year.
I am baffled and disappointed by the lack of response to the scheme in Northern Ireland, which is noted for its diligence and business acumen. It is a part of United Kingdom that, despite all that the enemy could do over past years, is benefiting from a steady improvement in its natural economy. I know of numerous small potential investors on the one hand and small enterprising companies on the other. The challenge for us all is how to bring them together.
It is true that the enterprise investment scheme is based on the Department of Trade and Industry in London, with welcome Treasury support. It is also true that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North, who is responsible for finance, and his colleague, the Under-Secretary, Baroness Denton, are making determined efforts to project that scheme in Northern Ireland. However, the two Ministers would be the first to admit that they need the support of all of us. I think that I can assure them of the backing of all hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland because, throughout my 25 years in the House, my colleagues from Northern Ireland, whatever their party affiliations, have banded together to support initiatives that have improved the material well-being of all our people in Northern Ireland.
I recognise the difficulty. This topic is not the stuff of which soundbites are made. It is dull dog stuff that cannot compete in the news industry with name-calling and abuse, but that means that we have to work all the harder to assist the two Ministers and their colleagues, should they decide—as I hope that they will—to stage a major promotion of a scheme that could make a great contribution to employment and prosperity in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I do not share the understanding of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) of the cuts in Government expenditure that have been imposed on us over the past few months. I make no apology for again referring, as have other hon. Members, to the vicious cuts in the action for community employment programme, whereby the groups involved were unilaterally informed on 12 December 1995 of a 25 per cent. cut in their budget. There was no advance consultation.
It is interesting to note that the document issued by the Department in February 1993, "The Strategy for the Support of the Voluntary Sector and Community Development in Northern Ireland", promised that there would be consultation with that sector on key issues before decisions were made by the Government. Why was that promise not honoured on this occasion?
Another document was issued that related to training and employment. It stated:
the Training and Employment Agency seeks an active partnership with voluntary organisations and local community interests in support of training and other initiatives which enhance employment programmes.
The providers embraced that whole-heartedly under the concept, advanced to them by the Government, of partnership. Once again, the Government acted unilaterally. The so-called partners in training were advised of the vicious cut by a press release. The Minister must answer to the voluntary organisations which provide such a dedicated service to the Northern Ireland community—they deserve much better treatment than that.
The Department failed to pursue through the system the consequences for our communities of that draconian cut. The most vulnerable—the aged, invalids, the young, pre-school children and the unemployed—have been hit directly. The Minister has made a vicious cut in that sector but, if services are to be maintained and not disappear entirely, another Department must pick up the tab. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the Government's intention? Will services to the most vulnerable members of our community be cut as a result of the Government's actions?
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) referred to the 2,000 to 3,000 jobs which may be affected—as will diverse organisations, such as Cancer Research, Age Concern, meals on wheels and play schools. There will be a fundamental withdrawal of services and the Minister must address that issue. Will he confirm whether the Government's ploy is simply to reduce spending on the Training and Employment Agency in the hope that the peace and reconciliation fund will meet the difference in the long term on the basis of its social inclusion philosophy?
I shall deal now with the Department of the Environment. My hon. Friend mentioned the roads infrastructure bonanza of the 1960s and he questioned whether the funds should be


renewed. Certain areas of Northern Ireland never enjoyed that bonanza in the 1960s—I refer to my constituency and to the neighbouring areas in south-eastern Northern Ireland. In the intervening three decades, there has been no meaningful capital expenditure on roads or communications infrastructure in those areas.
If we are to achieve any share of the job bonanza that is promised to Northern Ireland and any share in the forecast huge increase in tourism, we must have reasonably modern road access to that area, which is one of the legs of the tripod for tourism development in Northern Ireland: the lakes of Fermanagh, the north coast and the Mourne and St. Patrick's country. The latter does not have the accessibility to create meaningful infrastructure for tourism or inward investment. I shall not go into great detail, but the primary routes into that area—the A7, the B8 and A24, Belfast to Downpatrick, Belfast to Newcastle, and the coastal roads—will not be improved until 2001, except through the expenditure of a small part of the minor works budget. It is beyond me how that policy gets past the equal treatment qualification. It seems as though those areas which did not receive funding in times of plenty will certainly not receive it now.
I must refer to one aspect of the roads infrastructure in light of last month's debacle involving the ferry between Strangford and Portaferry, which is the major link between the Ards peninsula and south-east Ulster. The ferry service did not operate for several days—the main ferry, the back-up ferry and even the small passenger cruiser were out of action at the same time.
The Department of the Environment commissioned a firm of marine consultants to carry out an assessment of the ferry operation and make recommendations. The firm reported to the Department in April 1995, recommending that the motor vessel named Portaferry be replaced. The Department has sat on that report and, despite the endeavours of my party and others, we have failed to elicit a reasonable response to proposals made to the Department by the commission that it appointed. Will the ferry be replaced or not? It is a simple question.
Perhaps the Minister will take aboard an entirely different concept. Is it more meaningful in modern times, instead of replacing the ferry, to build a bridge between the Ards peninsula and the rest of the south-east? It would create much greater scope for increasing economic prosperity, based on the limited amount of industry that exists. It would connect the two areas of Down, which have the entire fishing industry of Northern Ireland, and facilitate commerce in agricultural produce. Does that proposition figure in the Minister's thinking?
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, if we are to have a meaningful social housing programme to take us into the new millennium, increased funding will unfortunately be required. All the primary indicators of the way in which our housing stock is developing show an unhealthy trend. Unfitness is increasing and is now 8.8 per cent.—higher than the Great Britain average. In some substantial rural areas it is as high as 28 per cent.
In the past five years, waiting lists have increased considerably and the population forecast of household growth is 7,500 per annum, yet the total targeted of the Housing Executive and the housing associations is only 2,300 per annum. Added to that is the increasing need to

provide specialised housing for the care in the community concept, which will obviously increase as the population ages.
A comment was made about the fact that the demand to rehabilitate houses by way of grant—repair, renovation or restoration—has obviously greatly outstripped that anticipated by Government. Is there any meaningful anticipation that adequate funding will be provided for the Housing Executive or whatever the new set-up will be after the housing consultation that is taking place?
I shall now discuss the severe cuts throughout the health boards—3 per cent. this year. Those cuts were announced in a press release by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), on 12 February 1996. It is an unusual press release. It is five or six pages long and admits clearly—for the first time ever, in my experience—that the 3 per cent. cut cannot be provided for out of the boards' funding. The Minister anticipates that only 1.5 per cent of that cut can be provided for out of the boards' funding. The Minister continued:
I will be asking Boards, GP Fundholders and Trusts to work together to minimise the impact of the remaining 1½% reduction on services to patients and clients.
That is the first time ever that, in a ministerial press release, a deliberate cut in services has been acknowledged.
In response to a letter concerning a constituent with an acute cardiac condition, the consultant cardiac surgeon at the Royal hospitals in Belfast wrote:
We have been advised by our Directorate here in the hospital that we are over 'contract' on Eastern Board and Northern Board activity. We have been told to avoid operating on all but the most urgent patients for these purchasers. We have been told that there are no restrictions on elective work for Southern and Western Board patients or for any GP fundholding practices.
As you can see from the above, this poses great difficulty for us in our clinical practice and might explain why your patient is having his operation delayed.
That is clear, unequivocal evidence of the two-tier system that now applies in the health service. Is the Minister taking that situation into consideration? As we speak, cardiac patients in my constituency and throughout the eastern and northern board areas cannot have their operations performed. Does the Minister think that the most pressing of all the monetary requirements to which the votes should apply? I end on that sensitive note concerning the health, the welfare and probably the lives of our constituents.

Rev. Ian Paisley: My speech will mirror that of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), because I have the same problems in my constituency. A letter from a constituent of mine in Ballymoney stated:
I write for an explanation on the different treatment of two very similar cases. Both parties reside in the Ballymoney area, the diagnosis for both cases a cartilage problem in the knee and the recommended treatment 'keyhole surgery'. The facts of the cases … are as follows:
Case A:
June 1994. Referred by GP to consultant in the Route Hospital, Ballymoney.


September 1994. Attended the Outpatients Department of the Route Hospital, Ballymoney, and was referred to a consultant in the Musgrave Park Hospital.
June 1995. Attended an Outpatients Clinic at Musgrave Park Hospital and was examined by a Mr. McCoy. Advised by Mr. McCoy that there was a waiting list for this operation and it was not anticipated that the operation would be performed before December 1995.
January 1996. A member of the clerical staff at the Ballymoney Health Centre (on the instructions of the GP) rang Musgrave Park Hospital and was informed that the operation would not be carried out 'until the beginning of the summer'.
That is, a wait of nearly two years. The letter continued:
Case B.
22 March 1995. Referred to consultant by GP.
28 March 1995. Attended clinic in Belfast and examined by consultant.
31 March 1995. Operation carried out in Musgrave Park Hospital.
That is, the same month. My constituent continues:
There would appear to be a startling anomaly in the treatment of the two cases. However, there are two facts previously omitted which clarify the situation.

1. Case A is a National Health patient.
2. Case B chose to go 'privately' and paid for the operation.
I have paid tax and Class I National Insurance Contributions for almost 25 years. Perhaps I am naive in believing that the contributions paid by me over the years entitle me to fair treatment…
It is an indisputable fact that there is a 'two-tier' health system. Those who are rich and pay receive virtually immediate attention whilst those who are poor wait and suffer. How many others have 'jumped the queue' since June 1995?
That speaks for itself, and backs up what the hon. Member for South Down said about a two-tier system.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but his comparisons are not entirely apposite. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was comparing the two-tier system of GPs who were fundholders and those who were not, while the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is comparing national health patients with private patients who are paying for their own treatment. If I am wrong, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify the issue.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept that, but it is a two-tier system in both cases. For the sake of time, I shall not go into the minutiae of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said.
The Housing Executive budget has been cut by £10 million. That has deprived Northern Ireland of new build and refurbishment work. In North Antrim, more than 400 people were driven out of their Northern Ireland Housing Executive homes during the bad weather because of burst pipes. The NIHE refused to acknowledge any responsibility. Two years ago, it cut out the direct labour scheme. This winter, when problems arose, the tenants could not find workmen to do the job. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive told me that it could find only two plumbers to repair 400 houses.
Will the Minister make the Northern Ireland Housing Executive acknowledge its responsibility? Its refusal to spend money on the upkeep of the houses caused an emergency in the very cold weather. The pipes were not lagged, and no proper action had been taken to protect

them from the very cold weather. After some 40 years, why is no work being carried out on any of the houses on Greystone crescent?
I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to spend £2.7 million on the next phase of the A26. That money is being spent because the Prime Minister visited Ballymena and everyone got at him. He heard only about the A26. He heard it from me as the local Member; he heard it from the mayor, from the deputy mayor and from every alderman and every councillor. He heard it out in the streets and under the Christmas tree, so he had to do something.
The sad thing is that the third phase of the A26 has been postponed for 13 years. I do not know who will be the Prime Minister then. It may even be the Minister. Perhaps the A26 will be finished off at the end of the day, but until then, the new shopping and retail developments in Ballymena will be bypassed as people go to other parts of North Antrim because the road system is inadequate. The Government must complete the A26 scheme as soon as possible. I welcome the second phase, and I am glad of the money, but there must be a more reasonable date for the third phase than 13 years ahead.
I have dealt briefly with health matters, but I remind the Minister that a promise was made that a small injuries clinic would be erected in Ballymena. What progress has been made on that scheme?
How much financial assistance for local businesses has gone into Ballycastle, Ballymena and Ballymoney in the past 12 months? Would the Minister agree that it is difficult for small businesses to avail themselves of financial help from organisations such as the Local Enterprise Development Unit? I do not know whether my colleagues have trouble with LEDU, but I certainly do.
Hubert Brown-Kerr, a young man in my constituency, is a goer. He started the Sunstart Bakery; he got very little financial help—about £6,000. He is now the biggest exporter of bakery products to the United States of America. But LEDU held him up for months when he wanted to build a huge bakery in Ballymena, and offered him only small sums of money. What he needed was very large sums, to get the factory built.
I pay a warm tribute to Baroness Denton for the help she gave us in this case. She told LEDU to get on with helping this young man. I am glad to tell the House that the factory is to be erected. I went to see Brown-Kerr the other day, and he told me that he has had so many orders for his commodities that he has had to close his order books. He is the type of young man we need in Northern Ireland, and he is the sort of entrepreneur who should be encouraged. LEDU should take note that a man it despised and rejected has successfully promoted Northern Ireland's bakery products in the United States.
There has been talk tonight about the ACE scheme. Every Northern Ireland Member is greatly concerned about the cuts. I want to know what alternative provision the Minister intends for these areas, to reduce their unemployment rates. If ACE is removed, more people will be on the unemployment list. It is all very well announcing a cut, but what is the alternative?
We all talked to Baroness Denton today in the airport lounge, because our planes were delayed. In our private meeting, she told us about the £2 million. We do not despise that money, but it is nothing compared with the cuts that have been made.
The Minister knew that I would raise the question of the Ballycraigah school tonight. I wonder what progress he is making. I hope he will be able to tell me tonight, or write to me about it.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Minister had an opportunity to study my letter and come up with a suggested date for visiting Wellington college? It has been in existence for a long time, under its former guise of the Carolan and Annadale schools. They amalgamated as part of the reorganisation, but the promises made to them at the time have not been fulfilled.
The attitude here seems to be one of mariana. For some years, the project was high up the list of priorities, but the Department demoted it. Now, with the move to become part of the new Balmoral high school in September, it looks as if the school is being asked to use the premises without even the modifications promised at an earlier stage.
When will the Minister be in a position to visit and see for himself that the school cannot actually provide the full scope of the curriculum in the rooms it has? There is an increase in the numbers going to the school. Outside the city, the nearest grammar school is Down high school on the southern side and the other schools, including the Methodist college, Victoria and others, are all over-subscribed.
It is not fair to absolve oneself of responsibility by saying that it is not the conditions of the classrooms that matter, but the quality of the teaching. The results show that the teachers are performing well, but the conditions are impinging on the future of those young people, and they do not have the same facilities as others.
I hope that the Minister will be able, in the near future, to pay that visit, which has been postponed at least twice. I recognise the pressures on the Minister's time, but I know that there has been a cry from the hearts of the staff and governors of Wellington college.
I now turn to vote 4, and the link between income support and housing benefits. I am concerned, and I have been for some time, about the pressures on the Housing Executive to increase rents. Has a study been done on the impact on the public purse of increasing Housing Executive rents by amounts well above the rate of inflation?
How many people are paying a full rent, and therefore, how much public money is being spent on housing benefit for those who cannot afford to pay those rents? Will we soon have the sort of situation that happened in London some years past, when the rises in the price of house building ultimately caused the collapse of housing prices? The private sector in Northern Ireland claims that it cannot afford to build houses of the quality that the Housing Executive is building for the price. Is a problem being stored up, and is public money being wasted because the Department and the Housing Executive keep putting up the rents of Housing Executive properties?
I wish to raise a specific issue that links education and housing benefit with income support. A young woman student at Queen's university took ill and had to discontinue her studies. She does not qualify for income

support, because social services say that she is in full-time education. Therefore, she is now faced with the problem that, because she does not qualify for income support, she will not qualify for housing benefit.
How is a person in that situation expected to live? Is there a misunderstanding of the rules on the part of somebody in social services? Is that student getting the bad advice to which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) alluded when he talked about pension advice?

Mr. Roy Beggs: The Minister might be able to clarify the point that education and library boards have some discretion in such matters, but they may not have been exercising it.

Rev. Martin Smyth: It occurs to me that the boards might have used their discretion in their own way, to the disadvantage of the student I have mentioned. That has put additional pressure on an ill person.
There are many important issues on which I could spend time, but I wish to consider the projected expenditure for 1996–97.
I was a little concerned that, in the Minister's answer to my question on 11 January, there might have been not a deliberate misleading, but certainly a misleading, of the House. When I pressed the question of the 3 per cent. up-front cut, the answer was that the same had happened in the past three years. The chairmen of the boards, and those in the trusts, were certainly not aware that the recommendation from the Department and the management executive was a repetition of what had happened for the past three years.
In my question, I suggested that there would be reductions in elective surgery. I welcome the fact that the Minister has listened and made some adjustments, but is there something wrong with the Department and the management executive? Are they out of touch with reality? What is the motivation for some of their decisions? They have been completely out of kilter in regard to the capitation charges that have been going on for some years; now, in trying to correct them, they have come up with another howler. There has been a postponement for another year to allow more consultation between the boards, the providers and the Department. Who is making the decisions, away from the reality of work?
Can the Minister tell us—especially those of us who are involved with the eastern health board—why, although it seems to have been possible for contracts to be finalised quite early in the year in the southern, western and northern boards, at least two of the eastern board's main providers, Belfast City hospital and the Royal Victoria hospital, are finding it difficult to get contracts finalised until after September? Is there something wrong with the bargaining process? Did it not start in time?
Reference has been made to the knock-on effect and the two-tier system. GP fundholders have regularly been blamed for that system. To what extent are the health commissioners here and the health boards in Northern Ireland playing the sysytem with the trusts providing the services?
I gave some statistics in Health questions recently, from which it seems that there is an undoubted pattern throughout the nation and certainly in Northern Ireland:


people come from GP fundholders to be treated three to six months earlier than those who come from the health boards and health commissioners.
I have seen figures for both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I have discovered—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the providers purchase the service that the GP fundholders are purchasing, knowing that, at the end of the year, extra money will be available through the boards to fulfil their contracts. In the meantime, the boards have had to deal mainly with emergency work.
Are the boards playing the system, while not providing patients with the care that they require and that their doctors are recommending? I do not believe that it is a fair system if that is what is going on. Is the system allowing that to happen, or is it human manipulation of the system?
I have looked at the impact that the cuts will have, and not only on elective surgery, because in Northern Ireland, as well as the boards and trusts, there are health and social services, provided, for example, by the South and East Belfast Community Trust. It is concerned about the impact that the cuts will have on the provision of social services. In that context, I pay tribute to the experimental and positive work that the South and East Belfast Community Trust has done.
Is there not something wrong with a system in which a perverse incentive allows people to go into residential and nursing homes when they could be better provided for in the community, in their own homes where they want to be? The figures show that, even at grade 3, which is the highest grade for a nursing home, the community trust can do it much more effectively and economically. The patients we visited in their homes were singing its praises. They had benefited when in hospitals and institutions, but now they are back in their community and are getting excellent service.
The state could do more and adjust the funds, which, in my judgment, are wrongly going into nursing homes and residential homes rather than into community trusts. It might mean that we would need some changes in legislation, for it was obvious that some of the people in their homes who were getting the service free were also in receipt of other benefits, such as attendance and mobility allowance. One wonders whether that could be used to extend the scope to others.
I should like to deal with the penalty clause. I was in one of our larger hospitals on Saturday, and discovered that, as it was getting near the end of the year, it was holding Saturday theatres, Sunday theatres and night theatres. Although there would be a penalty if it was over-productive, it would not be as great as if it was under-productive. The management is pressing it and saying, "We must fulfil these contracts; we must get these patients in," and so on. Is that part of the folly of the traditional Treasury attitude: "There is only so much money and if it is not spent by the end of the year, you will not get the same amount next year"? Can we look again at some way to improve our budgetary arrangements, so that they do not cause that last-minute splurge?
I look forward to the developments in hospital provision. Does the Minister agree that there was something wrong with the approach that allowed obstetricians in Belfast to say that what they needed was

a modern maternity provision on a green-field site—they were not terribly worried whether it was the City site or the Royal site?
In the examination, it was decided that the facilities that were available in the City tower block could be modified to give modern maternity provision, closing the Jubilee and the Royal maternity, with facilities that would be needed into the next century, catering for some 5,500 confinements and deliveries in a year. We now have the "Save the Royal" campaign, which denigrates the City. It claims that it has no neonatal services, and paediatricians are sending the message to mothers west of the Bann, in North Antrim, in South Down and other places: "It is not safe to have your babies in a modern provision in a city site." The site is only 15 minutes from the Royal Victoria hospital, but it is claimed that the paediatricians, especially the cardiac surgeons, will not be available. It is time that some involved in health provision began to be more responsible in terms of their job protection tactics and their attitude to the provision of modern services for our community.

Mr. Robert McCartney: As the only independent Northern Ireland Member, I collect the crumbs, or perhaps it is an advantage to have all the salient features of the Northern Ireland apportionment of funds dealt with so comprehensively and so unanimously by Members representing the major parties.
I have discovered this evening that a Minister's lot is, indeed, not a happy one. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has properly, on behalf of Belmont primary school, given us a catalogue of disrepair and other afflictions from which that school suffers and has asked the Minister to make it one of his priorities. However, we all appreciate, despite the extent of our respective begging bowls, that what the Minister has to allot is finite. The hon. Member for Belfast, East was more than generous when he acknowledged that the Minister, in the allotment of funds, had given priority to a major grammar school, Grosvenor grammar, in his constituency. Many of my constituents send their children to that school and I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the Minister for the priority given to Grosvenor. It has rendered me conscious of the fact that there are many other hon. Members and many other people who are assiduously seeking a slice of the goodies that the Minister from time to time has it in his power to allot.
I am equally conscious that the funds that any Minister in any Government has available to him are limited. It is a matter of fine judgment as to which of a number of competing priorities he allots some of the money at his disposal. However, one constant theme from every Northern Ireland Member who has spoken this evening has been a reference to the draconian cuts that have been administered in relation to the money allotted to the action for community employment schemes. There has been a 25 per cent. cut, capitalised at £12.5 million, in funds for a group of people who can least afford the cut, belonging as they do to one of the most economically and often socially disadvantaged strata of the community.
The schemes are designed to enable the long-term unemployed to re-enter employment society. They have given sterling service to Northern Ireland in an area where it was much needed. Northern Ireland generally,


compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, has always suffered a high level of unemployment, both male and female. In certain areas of Northern Ireland, male unemployment has been absurdly high. It was to address that particular area of chronic long-term unemployment that the action for community employment schemes were introduced. Not only did the schemes benefit those who had been out of work for a long period, but they gave hope and succour to young people emerging from school into the employment sphere in an area where the prospects of immediate employment—particularly for those without academic skills or those lacking any form of training—were particularly prejudiced.
The schemes have been enormously successful. Many of them have high success rates, with between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. of those passing through the schemes ultimately finding long-term or permanent employment. The schemes not only provide and train people for permanent employment, but in many cases they have achieved rates of between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of nationally recognised training qualifications. It is a matter not simply of training people, but of giving hope to those who have perhaps lost their self-respect through chronic unemployment or the absence of any prospect of employment.
As a peripheral benefit, the schemes have provided a great service to the community. That can be demonstrated by the wide nature of the groups that have written to me. These include Donaghadee Community Work Force Ltd., North Down local trust, Youthnet, YMCA Ireland, the Shankill road mission, the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Newtownards community work force. A wide range of charities and other community organisations have been mentioned by other hon. Members tonight in this regard.
While recognising that the resources at the disposal of the Minister have a finite quality, I also recognise that he is called upon to make judgments as to the allotment of resources to those who would lay claim to at least a small portion of the largesse that may be on offer. Every hon. Member in the Chamber this evening would make common cause in advancing the case for the restoration to the action for community employment schemes of something more than the £2 million that is currently on offer.
What has been demonstrated here this evening is the unanimous, cross-party, cross-community support from every hon. Member from Northern Ireland for the schemes, which enjoy that unanimous support because something about them touches a common chord in everyone. Every hon. Member from Northern Ireland is aware not only of the validity of the objective of the schemes, but of the success that they have enjoyed in delivering to deprived people—in every sense of the word—some prospect of hope. They have also managed to engender a sense of community. Not only do they offer training and the prospect of permanent employment or a qualification, but, in a peripheral sense, they provide services to other disadvantaged members of the community—the sick, the aged and those suffering chronic invalidity. A number of organisations benefit from the action for community employment schemes—from meals on wheels, to the St. Vincent de Paul Society, to Donaghadee Community Work Force Ltd., an organisation in my constituency.
In a letter addressed to me, Donaghadee Community Work Force Ltd. refers to the organisation of the local summer festival—which attracts huge crowds—and the entertainment of Prince Andrew, among others, who visited as part of the VE day celebrations. The planning, creation and maintenance of the town's floral displays resulted in its winning first place in the Ulster in Bloom competition and being selected to represent Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom in the finals.
The organisation offers a range of adult education courses designed to promote education as a constructive use of leisure time. I give these examples as an illustration of the filtering down of the work of these community organisations, not simply in the people whom they train but in the sense of community purpose that they afford to a much wider range of people. I am not in a position to calculate all the benefits in financial terms, including the knock-on benefits of schemes of this kind.
If the schemes engender the work ethic in young people and in the chronically unemployed, and if they prevent those people from finding other less practical and useful avenues for their energies and endeavours, they serve the whole community. They also prevent the drawing of unemployment and family support benefits. If the financial benefit were properly calculated, there would be great advantages to the community—both present and future—that would more than offset the £12.5 million that will be saved by the cuts.
I therefore ask the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—I am conscious of the demands from a variety of sources—to look at this issue with sensitivity and with understanding, which I am sure that he can bring to bear on the issue. All hon. Members feel that this is perhaps a miscalculation, that this is perhaps a failure to seize the right priority, that this is something which, if it is not restored, will literally and metaphorically knock the stuffing out of a section of the community that is least able to bear it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. In the 48 minutes available before the wind-up, four hon. Members wish to catch my eye. That should not be impossible with a bit of co-operation.

Rev. William McCrea: I shall bear in mind the time, and not repeat much of what has already been said. I join with all hon. Members who have mentioned the action for community employment scheme. I have been lobbied by quite a number of community organisations which feel that it is of vital importance that finances are made available for the continuation of the original ACE scheme.
I am sure that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) realises that one of the biggest problems in Northern Ireland is the roads infrastructure. I had the privilege of hosting Baroness Denton of Wakefield in my constituency at the weekend. Her visit was most welcome, and I know that she understood the difficulties of getting there. Unfortunately, we are told that to solve part of the


problem we must attract industrialists. We have to compete with the other areas of the Province that are close to air and sea ports.
For the likes of Omagh district or Castlederg, the great difficulty is transporting people and products between their businesses and the air and sea ports. I ask the Minister, therefore, to implore his colleague to ensure the upgrading of the road from the end of the M1 at Dungannon right through to Ballygawley roundabout, Omagh and Strabane. That is a major section of the road. The Minister said that perhaps private finances should be considered. I ask the Department to take whatever actions are necessary to get us a road that will enhance the prospects of industrial development in an area of very high unemployment. We are sincere when we say to the Minister that that is one of the essential ingredients.
Another necessity is the conclusion of the Omagh and the Cookstown bypasses. If we are again faced with terrorist activity, God forbid that the business people should again have to suffer being held up by the security huts near the security base in Cookstown. We urgently need that bypass. The Magherafelt bypass is equally important to enable us to get industrialists into the area and products out as quickly as possible.
Grants have been mentioned. The staff of the grants office seem to be totally disillusioned. They do not know what to say. They simply have to give us the old, old story and spin the record again, saying that there is no money that they can hand out. Many of the applications are long term; yet the papers are still filled with encouragements from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for further applications. It would at least be something if the executive would stop giving the impression that if one makes an application one will get an answer. There is no money for the long-standing applications at the moment. We urgently need more money for Housing Executive grants and to pay for the long list that are still in the pipeline.
The health cuts will hurt the service for patients and clients in my constituency, which is to be condemned. We do not need further health cuts. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the cuts of the past three years. One can only cut a service so far before one goes right to the bone. Unfortunately, the further cuts that are being forced on the boards are destroying an excellent health service and once again bringing disillusionment to the staff, who are trying to provide essential services without adequate finances.
My colleagues and many other hon. Members are concerned about the education boards, which are part of the Minister's brief. It is not right for there to be any change in the boards. They should not be juggled around. Time should not be wasted trying to get rid of some of them. It is the will of the people that they should remain as they are. Only if there were an Administration in Northern Ireland, in which the elected representatives could sit down together and discuss the whole problem of education, should that be considered. The Government should stop fooling around with that issue. It is about time that the Minister told us that the boards are not going to change and that they will remain.
The other problem that faces many of us is the proposition of the 16-year-olds-plus having to pay to continue in education. That has certainly sent a shiver up the spine of many firms. As usual, those who are caught

in the poverty trap and who have to pay so much because they are just over the line and cannot get the benefits will have to face great bills. That is totally unacceptable within the community.
I want to ask the Minister about Orlit houses. There was a report on the rules—do we have it? The report has been conducted for a long time—what is the answer? Homes that should be properly repaired are not being repaired because of a report that has been commissioned somewhere in England. We have not yet received an answer.
We have heard that 144 jobs in the Unipork bacon factory in Cookstown are to be lost. That has caused tremendous dismay among my constituents. Two weeks earlier we heard that a package of £11.5 million was to be invested; now we hear that 144 jobs are to be lost. That matter needs to be considered. It is important that the pig industry and the factories ensure that the farmers receive a proper return for their work. I am sad to say that for two solid years the farmers were working simply for the bank rather than for their families, and they were falling deeper and deeper into debt. It is important that factories should be willing to give a fair return to farmers and not take their labours for granted. We must resolve the problems: where farmers have gone to the wall there is now a lack of pigs for the factories in the Province.
I want to give other hon. Members the time that is due to them to mention their constituency problems, so I shall mention only briefly the Tyrone and Fermanagh hospital. It is an excellent site, and it would be an excellent university campus site if the Department were willing to take it up as such. It has been wasted, which is disgraceful. Its buildings are second to none, and the Minister should consider the site afresh to see whether it would be possible to use that excellent facility in a profitable way, for the betterment and education of our people.
Local representatives are certainly demanding that planning should be returned to their hands. Instead of officials saying that they have conducted some sort of consultation process—which is often merely an apology for such a process—and then dictating what is to happen, it should be the other way round: the officials should make the recommendations and the elected representatives from local government authorities throughout the Province should make the decisions.
I have tried to take a quick canter over the course so as to leave other hon. Members time to participate, but it is important that my constituents and those of other hon. Members should be given detailed responses to the matters that are causing them grave concern. Many of the problems cannot be answered in a few minutes at the end of a debate: detailed answers are needed to satisfy my constituents and those of other hon. Members that their problems are being seriously considered.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Like other hon. Members, I should like to refer to vote 3 in the Department of Economic Development. While I welcome the continuing decline in unemployment in Northern Ireland and the enthusiasm of the Minister with responsibility for the economy for attracting new investment to Northern Ireland, I do not think that there has been a sufficient drop in unemployment to justify the


drastic cuts that have been forced on the action for community employment schemes by the Training and Employment Agency's decision to institute a 25 per cent. cut across existing schemes.
My Northern Ireland parliamentary colleagues, of all parties represented in the House, agree that the schemes have benefited the long-term unemployed, who have obtained places on them. They have also been beneficial because the community service provided by ACE schemes met the local needs of the most disadvantaged groups in Northern Ireland. The great pity is that there was not a proper assessment of each ACE scheme prior to the announced cuts in order to ensure that the schemes, which included a significant training element and were raising the skill levels of previously unemployed participants, remained fully funded and protected. ACE schemes that provided work activity rather than raising the skills of individuals should have been given 12 months' notice to improve to a preset standard or forced to close down and those on the scheme assimilated into a more acceptably managed scheme that had a significant training element.
I recently attended an evening club meeting of the Physically Handicapped and Able-Bodied, PHAB, in Carrickfergus in my constituency. It was good to see young and older people of all religious groups mixing naturally in a friendly, caring, secure atmosphere with their local leaders.
PHAB Northern Ireland is based in north Belfast. The ACE scheme managed by PHAB has an excellent record. In the past year, it employed 34 persons, of whom 14 have gone into permanent employment and six into higher education. That is a good record, but no allowance has been made for quality schemes in areas with high unemployment and social deprivation. The 25 per cent. cut announced by the Training and Employment Agency targeted all schemes equally.
Nevertheless, I welcome the announcement today by the Minister responsible for the economy that £2 million will be released to soften the swingeing cuts. It would have made more sense for the TEA properly to evaluate each ACE scheme and secure those that met community needs while improving the skills and prospects of the long-term unemployed in their areas. The £2 million will ease only part of the pain that removal of £12.5 million from ACE expenditure will cause. Like other hon. Members, I appeal to the Minister to hold the Training and Employment Agency accountable for that disgraceful decision and endeavour to find further funds to minimise the damage to the schemes.
Vote 3, Department of the Environment, deals with sums granted for expenditure on water, sewerage and related services. A "Green Guide" is published in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), will pay attention because the "Green Guide" is for suppliers of goods and services to the Northern Ireland civil service. On page 15, regarding asbestos, it instructs readers:
Do:
take every precaution when working on Government premises to avoid disturbing any asbestos remaining in the fabric of our buildings;
ensure that asbestos of any type is not used in the composition of products supplied to Departments.

That sound advice suggests that the view of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, that there is a health hazard from asbestos fibres associated with both inhalation and ingestion as routes of exposure, has been accepted and that there is sufficient concern to justify refusing to use asbestos cement pipes for carrying water supplies for human consumption anywhere in Northern Ireland. Was it necessary to commission yet another study by the Water Research Centre into the use of asbestos cement pipes, when research has already been done elsewhere? How much is the study costing? When will the results be published? Can the use of asbestos cement pipes in Northern Ireland be justified if there is the slightest risk to the health of one citizen, when alternative products are available?

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Water Research Centre has already given that advice? Why do we need to go over it again?

Mr. Beggs: I am assuming that the enthusiasm for employing consultants in Northern Ireland has led to the expenditure that we are about to incur.
I also want to bring to the Under-Secretary's attention an excellent document published recently, called the "Rathcoole Leisure Plan". It was commissioned by Newtownabbey borough council, in my constituency, and others. I wish to place on record my thanks to the mayor, Alderman Beattie, and Councillors Langhammer, Boyd, Hollis, Snoddy and Robinson for the time that they have devoted in genuine consultation. I also thank the architects of the plan, Kennedy Fitzgerald and Associates.
Rathcoole is a severely disadvantaged area in my constituency, which has suffered throughout the 25 years of troubles. The vast majority of its residents are ordinary, decent people who want peace and a job. They want to see their children grow up in a decent environment, receive a decent education and become good, caring citizens. The implementation of the plan will provide hope for the future and it will help to promote speedy social and economic regeneration in that area. I appeal to the Minister to accept my invitation to visit the Rathcoole area, examine the "Rathcoole Leisure Plan" and fully support the efforts of Newtownabbey borough council and others to secure the necessary funding for the project.
I shall not refer at length to the A8. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler)—who delivered the winding-up speech in a recent debate—said that the A8, Lame to Belfast road, was etched indelibly on his mind as a priority for upgrading. However, my constituents in the Carrickfergus area wish to see urgent expenditure on the A2 and B90 roads. I regret that agreement has not yet been reached with some of the owners of the property that is needed for the necessary road improvements.
I urge the Minister to vest the land required in order to avoid further delay, while encouraging his officials yet again to reach agreement with the individuals and families whose residences in the Carrickfergus area will be adversely affected by the improvements that road users require urgently. The future growth and development of Carrickfergus borough is being restricted by the inadequacy of the existing main road infrastructure in the borough. I hope that the starting date for work there will be announced soon.
My Ulster Unionist colleagues and I believe that every child in Northern Ireland has a right to expect to be treated fairly and to receive an equal opportunity in life. Sadly, many children and their parents do not believe that equality of opportunity exists for all children. There is a definite disadvantage in the transfer of selection procedure outcome for B-grade pupils who seek to enrol in state-controlled or voluntary grammar schools, which are attended mainly by pupils from controlled primary schools. However, in the majority of the Roman Catholic maintained sector grammar schools, grade B—and even grade C—pupils have found school places.
I urge the Minister to endeavour to remove that unintentional discrimination and to co-operate with headmasters and boards of governors who seek to increase their school admissions and enrolment numbers in order to meet local demand for places and, above all, to ensure that more children from controlled schools with a B grade obtain the grammar school places that their parents seek for them. When the Minister has examined closely what has been happening in Northern Ireland for several years, I shall do my own test and I hope that I shall be able to award a pass mark to the officials in the Department of Education.
The Department of Health and Social Services, in vote 5, page 10, makes provision for Christmas bonuses for pensioners. The value of the Christmas bonus has diminished steadily since it was introduced, and that issue should be examined. An early announcement when circumstances trigger entitlement to cold weather payments would give comfort and reassurance to those awaiting benefit from that source.

Mr. William Ross: I begin by expressing the thanks of all those connected with Limavady grammar school to the Minister of State for making available £6.4 million for long-needed improvements to that school. I declare an interest as my children attend the school. Although they will probably have left school by the time that the work is finished, the substantial improvements will benefit future generations and Northern Ireland as a whole.
A high-quality education is a vital building block if the capacity of Northern Ireland to attract investment in jobs is to improve. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Bench recognise that. During 1995, Northern Ireland's economy improved. We all want that improvement to continue so as to banish the misery of unemployment for ever.
Given the efforts being made by Government to provide employment, I should be grateful for a full explanation of the policy being pursued by the Government and the Industrial Development Board, in relation to the way in which they promote one area of Northern Ireland rather than another.
The Minister is aware of remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on 7 February 1996 at column 274, to the effect that the Government's policy was to provide three quarters of all new jobs in specific areas of deprivation. That piece of information builds on the letter sent to me by the Under-Secretary, Baroness Denton, who is in charge of the Department of Economic Development:
While IDB is specifically tasked to give priority targeting to areas of social need",

the letter, of course, repeats the mantra that
the ultimate decision … rests … with the investor.
I have to tell the Minister of State that that statement is not good enough. We on this Bench want to know just how the "tasking" is worded and how it has worked out in practice, with regard to the amount of investment and jobs of all types going to areas dominated by one religious denomination. We also want to know what extra little sweeteners have been given to investors to go to selected areas that have not been given to other areas.
We want a list of the favoured areas, in relation to not only council districts, but locations within each council area, and we want to know how long that policy has been in play, the changes made to it, when they were made and what input there was from the Maryfield secretariat.
I hope that the House and those remaining in the Chamber, if not the Government, realise the enormity of what has gone on. It is simply that some parts of Northern Ireland and the citizens who live there have had consistent, assiduous discrimination in their favour by the application of "guidelines" laid down by the Government. Such guidelines no doubt have a very fuzzy line round them and are capable of a wide variety of constructive interpretations.
The Minister will be aware that in the Northern Ireland context, some people will say that the discriminatory nature of the policy means that some areas of Northern Ireland, such as Coleraine in my constituency and Ballymena in North Antrim, are expected to pull themselves up by the efforts of the local community alone. Given that other areas have very many millions of pounds of public funding poured in, my constituents are competing on very unequal terms.
I want a categoric assurance from the Minister that all areas will be on a level playing field in future, because what has been going on is unacceptable by any normal standard that one might care to apply.
I shall now discuss two or three small items. I shall be brief because two hon. Gentlemen from Great Britain have been sitting here, hoping to speak.
The Minister will be aware of the Arcadia building in Portrush. It occupies an honoured place in that holiday resort and it has been at the centre of several allegations in recent days. The answers that I was given to parliamentary questions on 15 February set out briefly many facts and say, among other things, that the ballroom was in a very poor state of repair.
The chamber of commerce in the town has been involved in efforts to repair the building, to make future use of it. I am given to understand that the chamber of commerce needs to see the development brief and the structural survey before it can make up its mind what can be done. Is there any good reason why the Minister should not allow it to do so, so that it will become clear whether that famous building can be brought back into use?
As to the salting of roads during the present winter and in future winters, a new primary school has been built at Cregg road in Claudy—it is a steep minor road, with the school about 100 yd from the main road. The school authorities and the children are most anxious that the short stretch between the main road and the school is salted during bad weather, because it is dangerous in the present conditions. In a letter dated 14 February, the


Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), simply said, "No, nothing doing," which is not an acceptable attitude. He wrote that
it would not be possible to respond positively in all cases.
That implies that it is possible to respond positively in some cases. I suggest that salting should be undertaken in this case, to avoid the accident that parents feel is just around the corner. I ask the Minister seriously to reconsider my request.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I want to express my appreciation of the gesture by all our colleagues from Northern Ireland to make time available for two other hon. Members. Northern Ireland Members do not get that much time on the Floor of the House, so I appreciate their courtesy in sharing it.
As to the Department of Economic Development's vote 1 in respect of the Industrial Development Board, I want to express my admiration for the board's centres world wide. Members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee visited South Korea and were most impressed by the IDB's representative, Mr. Kim. Using local people has certainly paid off, and I hope that the Minister will maintain that cost-effective policy.
I noted from the IDB's report that the board made visits throughout Northern Ireland, to try to ensure that each area feels that it is included in the board's activities. However, there are concerns in South Down and Fermanagh—in common with any area outside Belfast and other big centres—that they are not getting their fair share. I ask the Minister to remain vigilant, to ensure that all areas of Northern Ireland enjoy a fair share of the limited opportunities to attract industrial activity to the Province.
Earlier, the Minister made reference to block payments, saying that if one section benefited more, cuts would have to be made in another. Life is about comparisons. The Northern Ireland Office could certainly learn from the Scottish Office, and ensure that any new incumbent as Secretary of State does not spend a fortune on public relations activities, in hiring right-wing journalists all over the place purely and simply for publicity-seeking purposes. If the Northern Ireland Office does not go down that road, that will save a fair amount of money.
The Industrial Research and Technology Unit's report states that the promotion of engineering and science as a career for girls was given particular attention in 1994–95, which also merits praise. The IRTU is represented on the WISE committee—the Women in Science and Engineering committee—which aims at changing the attitude of young people, parents and teachers in respect of career opportunities for men and women in science and engineering. That excellent IRTU initiative is praiseworthy, as is the unit's inaugural Irish innovation lecture.
At the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference in July 1993, Ministers agreed that Northern Ireland and the Republic would collaborate in launching a series of Irish innovation lectures, aiming to publicise the importance of innovation in wealth creation. Without going into any border or constitutional issues, that was an example of

sensible co-operation between two neighbouring administrations to address the issue of wealth—the basis of providing all other services in the island of Ireland.
I now move on to the Department of the Environment and particularly the responsibility for planning. Recently, the Department of the Environment launched a consultation paper on the Belfast city region and invited comments on that document which dealt with planning for the entire region. Although it was a consultation paper, not one outside influence was involved in compiling it. Although the Department was prepared to listen to any point of view, the parameters and the agenda that were set did not encourage a whole range of submissions to the paper. That brings me to the specific spending commitment.
A number of organisations need to be fostered and encouraged in relation to planning in Northern Ireland to compensate for the well-known and well-expressed democratic deficit in the Province. Local councillors do not have as much say and influence as they should in planning matters. I understand that we need an internal settlement in Northern Ireland before we can address that democratic deficit, however, surely there is a need to ensure proper funding for organisations that can help community groups formulate submissions to planning documents such as that for the Belfast city region. I was certainly impressed by three organisations: Community Technical Aid, the Rural Development Council and the Rural Community Network. If those organisations are to help the community address the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland, they need financial support.
In Britain, the importance of community participation was highlighted in the 1994 Department of the Environment research department report entitled: "Community Involvement in Planning and Development Processes". It stated that
rather than being an additional hurdle or barrier to development, involvement can be a way to speed processes and generate more acceptable proposals".
That is exactly right for England, Scotland and Wales; it is also exactly right for Northern Ireland, where there is also a democratic deficit. I hope that the Minister will be able to maintain and, if possible, increase support to those organisations that serve the community.
I now move on to the votes on the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, which cover one or two matters that are worthy of support. One is the relationship between ombudsmen. Informal meetings of public sector ombudsmen are held three times a year, when the ombudsman meets the local government ombudsmen for England, for Wales and for Scotland and Mr. Kevin Murphy, the Northern Ireland ombudsman. That illustrates that there is proper co-operation that can be only for the good of Northern Ireland.
Planning and DSS were the two most frequent sources of complaints to the ombudsman. One case involved the review of formal investigations regarding planning and concerned the Department of the Environment. The ombudsman's report stated:
The Department's records of its investigation and pursuit of the breach of planning approval were completely inadequate. Rarely have I come across such a history of inefficiency and poor administrative practice. Time and again my investigation was hampered by the absence of documentary evidence of telephone calls, site inspections, internal instructions".


I maintain that that type of fault in the planning service is directly related to the lack of democratic oversight of the work of the Department in question. It is high time that the Department found a way of ensuring that local communities can monitor its work and have some input in to it. They should not just have the chance to complain; that just puts them on the back foot. There must be a specific place for electoral involvement in the planning service in Northern Ireland.
I shall close on that note. Once again, I express my appreciation to my Northern Ireland colleagues.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Why is the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire rising to speak at 12.35 am in an appropriation debate on Northern Ireland? He will get no coverage in his local media, but he does think it important.
Appropriation debates are probably the nearest we come to Northern Ireland Budget debates, when important matters relating to Northern Ireland's economy can be considered. This is our opportunity to talk about the economic and social regeneration of the Province, and the requisite approaches to that.
The economic and social regeneration of Northern Ireland helps perhaps more than anything else to undermine terrorism in the end. I know that blocking terrorism also helps regeneration, as has happened recently—although we currently face a considerable setback.
There are all sorts of headings under which these matters can be discussed. I want to pick up remarks made by other hon. Members today. It was noticeable that there was hardly a breath of sectarianism in the debate. Indeed, there was a great deal of common ground between the representatives of four political parties. Many of them were advancing constituency concerns and looking for more assistance, but there seemed to be a great deal of common ground when it came to expenditure and the means of obtaining it.
In several Northern Ireland debates that I have attended I have found great cross-party agreement about various items. I remember our debates on student loans. Throughout Northern Ireland there was opposition to the Government's proposals. In Committee, electricity privatisation was also the subject of common conclusions, although the arguments varied. A subject of a great deal of unity this evening has been the ACE schemes.
People often fail to understand, in short, how much unity there is in Northern Ireland politics. That is because of the key divisions about its constitutional future.
I should like to know more about the economic and social programmes of the various parties to these debates. I would like the SDLP, the DUP, the Ulster Unionists and the Independent Unionists to spell out their programmes a little more fully. Do those programmes tie in with the speeches that are being made? The only person this evening who seemed to tie in his analysis with a more general economic outlook was the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux). It turns out that his analysis was different from everyone else's.
The right hon. Member started by saying that his argument should be seen within the context of a unitary taxation system that existed throughout the United Kingdom, and that it could be extended only from ideas

that were being produced about what should be done in Northern Ireland constituencies. If extrapolated, that would lead to bankruptcy and, therefore, we must be careful about expenditure. The right hon. Member then elaborated his overall objectives, including no fixed exchange rates, the repayment of national debt and low inflation. Some of those objectives are shared by the Government. Other ideas that were raised had much more flavour of Labourism, even if that was good old Labourism rather than new Labourism.
The appropriation debates should be used as an opportunity to discuss what needs to be done about economic and social problems in Northern Ireland, because it has massive problems quite apart from the conflict. Those other problems include high unemployment. Northern Ireland has many of the difficulties that exist in British constituencies in the health service and other provision, but to the nth degree. We need to take an overall approach. I know that that is difficult because Northern Ireland politicians, in the end, are out-groups in the United Kingdom Parliament. They provide support for Government or opposition to Government, but they never share power, unless—as might rarely happen—they hold the balance of power. Therefore, it is easier in most circumstances to behave more like a Back Bencher who is not necessarily always in line with his Front Benchers and to argue for constituency concerns.
I welcomed much of the debate. It has been very different from appropriation debates that I have come across in the past. The Ministers who introduced past debates usually made free enterprise arguments about the Northern Ireland economy. On this occasion, we had a rather dry, accountant's speech that did not offer any reasons for the order. Perhaps the debate will be enlivened by the Minister's response. The Opposition Front Benchers often make collectivist proposals, but on this occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) questioned and probed the Government's position.
One of the Labour party's problems in Northern Ireland is that we are not organised there. We have an overall economic and social programme for growth, jobs, partnership and the extension of training and education. That extends to Northern Ireland, but we do not have a movement there to influence what we do. When a debate in the House involves the central region of the Labour party, which might not be of immediate constituency concern to me, I feel obliged to be present because I am part of the central region. However, because we have no Members or even candidates from Northern Ireland, some of the detail about problems in Northern Ireland does not come to our attention except through informal links with bodies such as the Northern Ireland section of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
I wish us, including Front Benchers, to take a more ideological approach on economic and social matters, but it is essential that hon. Members from Northern Ireland do that themselves. In that way, people such as myself can learn how the views of the people of Northern Ireland fit into the overall perspective.

Mr. Dowd: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Like many other hon. Members, I was here just after 4.30 pm, when we began debating the earlier Northern Ireland business. Since then, we have covered a number of aspects of life for Northern Ireland citizens—from mega-political issues relating to emergency provisions and the tragic circumstances of the moment, to life as it is lived by real people in all corners of Northern Ireland.
I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). What is transparently evident from the debate is the common experience of people from all backgrounds in all parts of Northern Ireland, and the fact that they are trying to get on with their lives in a way that is to the best advantage of themselves and their families.
Earlier, I took up a good deal of the time of the House, so I shall be brief now. I do not intend to go over all the points that other hon. Members have covered; suffice it to say that I was delighted that every Northern Ireland Member who wanted to speak was able to do so, as were my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and for North-East Derbyshire.
If the Minister picks up one feature of the debate, it will be the overwhelming concern that is felt about the action for community employment programme, which was mentioned in detail by the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), and by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). Indeed, most other hon. Members mentioned ACE, if only in passing.
It is a salutary lesson for the Minister that, whatever else has happened to the programme, the way in which the reduction exercise has been carried out has merely antagonised many people, and undermined the agency's position. It clearly needs re-examination. The minor concessionary allowance announced earlier today is a promising start, but the Minister would be deluding himself if he thought that that was the end of the dispute.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for East Antrim said about an evaluation of the project, to take, at least, a scientific approach of some kind. As I said earlier, I have been trying to obtain information from the Training and Employment Agency about the schemes that it is supporting, where the schemes are and what the benefits are, but I have been unable to obtain it. I sincerely hope that it has that information, because without it the effects of the measure will be harsh and, indeed, extremely unfair.
Many hon. Members mentioned the health service. We were given clear signs of the growth of a two-tier service. The reforms in Northern Ireland have been somewhat behind those in the rest of the United Kingdom, but the experience is identical. One of the most infuriating aspects of the way in which many shadow trusts—trusts, as many of them will soon be—have gone about their business is their devaluation of the idea of consultation. They go through the formality of announcing a plan, and saying that there will be a period for responses; but I have yet to come across a single case in which their ultimate conclusion has been different from their original projection. That was just as true in the major London teaching hospitals as it has been in Northern Ireland.
There was a widespread feeling that the Housing Executive had, if not lost its way, lost a great deal of momentum in recent times. The story about grants recounted by the hon. Member for Belfast, East illustrated the problems experienced throughout Northern Ireland and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom.
On roads and infrastructure, most hon. Members gave detailed and experienced voice to many of the issues that I outlined some time ago from the Dispatch Box.
I am sure that hon. Members will be far more interested in what the Minister has to say in response to all of the matters that have been raised. I am deeply interested in the 27 volumes of paper that have come down from the other end of the Chamber, so I conclude my remarks and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State who opened the debate. He had been in the Chamber since about 4.30 pm yesterday and he had other responsibilities, as I am sure that hon. Members will realise. He asked me to apologise that he could not be here for the wind-up.
An enormous number of topics have been covered, as usual, and a lot of paper has been moving around the Chamber. I am always fascinated when I start off with a brief that seems to cover everything, only to discover that ideas that hon. Members have come up with have not been covered in my briefing—it is always helpful to have a little assistance from time to time. I shall try to answer the main questions that have been asked. I cannot answer all the questions, as I do not have the time. I would not do the questions justice if I tried to answer them in the time available, so I shall write to hon. Members on matters that I have not covered.
As usual, the debate has been a voyage of enlightenment. I was once asked by someone who read the Official Report of one of these debates whether Northern Ireland really was such an unhappy place, because everything seemed to be wrong. I pointed out that it was not the total picture of Northern Ireland and that it was merely a lot of hon. Members doing their job and raising important issues on behalf of their constituents. When I wind up these debates, I always feel rather like the Pooh-Bah of the debate—expected to be able to deal with everything. As I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members realise, many of the issues that have been raised do not fall within my own ministerial responsibilities, but I shall endeavour to cover the issues that do.
The ACE scheme was touched on by many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the reductions in the ACE programme, and have heard the heartfelt representations that have been made. I shall pass them on to my colleagues.
It is right to say, however, that ACE was introduced at a time when unemployment was rising rapidly. Although it is still a major problem, there are signs of improvement. Unemployment has fallen to its lowest level in 14 years.


During the 12 months to June, 11,000 new jobs were created in Northern Ireland. Output has risen 13.2 per cent. faster than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and there has been a steady stream of inward investment projects and expansions of existing firms. In response to the improving economic situation, there were pertinent reasons for refocusing the use of resources, with more emphasis placed on the schemes that more directly contribute to economic growth and that will in the longer term better address the needs of the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed, in finding sustainable employment.
I share the pleasure, which others have expressed tonight, at the announcement by my noble Friend Baroness Denton of a £2 million package of transitional measures to allow ACE schemes to manage the reduction of activities. These are designed to allow schemes, particularly those that provide support to the needy, the elderly, the disabled and the ill, time to plan alternative arrangements. Short-term funding is also being made available for schemes that are losing core posts, to phase them out over the year. I am sure that that will be helpful.
I can tell the hon. Member for South Down that there has been no reduction in the overall budget for the Training and Employment Agency. Additional resources have been made available, for example, to the company development scheme and the community work programme. The adjustments to ACE have facilitated the refocusing of resources.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir. J. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West asked what effect the security budget changes, which have resulted from the changing circumstances, might have on the Northern Ireland Departments' spending plans. Although the order under consideration this evening deals with the estimates only of Northern Ireland Departments, the public expenditure allocation underlying the separate Northern Ireland Office estimates is part of the total block provision for which the Secretary of State is responsible. Any increase in the Northern Ireland Office security budget as a result of the breakdown of the ceasefire will inevitably have repercussions for other important economic and social programmes.
It is right to make that point clear. I quote the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when he announced this year's budget and the amount of money that was available as a result of what became known as the peace dividend. He said:
Last year I explained that, if the violence resumed, these savings would have to be restored to the security budget. If violence resumes, then there will be losses in the key public services such as our schools and our hospitals, affecting the jobs of those who work in them as well as those who use them.
That was a stark warning and it was a correct warning because many of those areas of expenditure had come about because of the savings that we were able to make as a result of peace. It was made clear at that time that if the savings were to be restored to the security budget and removed from the areas where they were being applied, the blame would lie fairly and squarely with those who had returned to violence. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland, in all parts of the community, will be fully aware that that is the price of the decision by the IRA—so widely condemned by us all—to return to violence.
I now turn to another general subject, which was raised only by the hon. Member for Belfast, East—the Fokker crisis and the impact on Shorts. I appreciate the importance of the contracts under which Shorts supplies wings to the Fokker jetliner programme and the concern among the work force at Shorts about their future job security. Those matters were raised by my noble Friend Baroness Denton when she recently met representatives of the Dutch Government in Holland. The problems facing Fokker are commercial and need to be resolved on that basis. The Industrial Development Board is maintaining close contact with Shorts and Bombardier on developments.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for South Down, for North Antrim and for Belfast, East, talked about what they described as the deficiencies and the cuts in Housing Executive funding. The gross resources available to the Housing Executive remain substantial—£547 million in 1995–96—and it is proposed to increase the figure by a further £8 million in 1996–97. Whatever views hon. Members may take about the level of housing need, no one can deny that those are substantial figures.
The other general matter that was raised by a number of hon. Members, especially the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for North Antrim, was what they referred to as the two-tier health service. The Government do not accept that GP fundholding has introduced a two-tier health service. Boards and trusts have considerable freedom to carry forward unspent funds from one year to another. Underspends do not reduce the budgets allocated to the boards for the next year.
I shall deal now with one or two specific issues raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West asked about the additionality of the EU peace programme. The programme, both the EU receipts and matching funds, is fully additional. The programme is novel in its delivery mechanisms, which are now in place. The rate of spend is expected to increase during the coming year and any money unspent this year can be carried forward to next year.
The hon. Members for Lewisham, West and for Mid-Ulster raised the question of dispensing guidelines for doctors. As a result of the implementation of the new departmental guidelines on dispensing, some doctors will lose dispensing income. The level of loss of income by individual GP practices cannot be gauged until the board's review of dispensing doctors' lists. However, to ensure that all existing medical practices in rural areas remain viable, the Health and Personal Social Services Executive is introducing an inducement scheme, from April 1996, which will guarantee their viability.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East invited me to meet him again to discuss Belmont primary school. These decisions are always difficult, but I would be delighted to have a meeting with him. I believe that my Department has been in touch to organise a meeting as soon as possible.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley asked about the enterprise investment scheme and referred to its low uptake in Northern Ireland. I note his comments. It is a national scheme that can provide valuable support for unquoted trading companies, and I should like businesses in Northern Ireland to make far greater use of its facilities. I certainly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's continuing


interest in the subject, and I will pass on to my noble Friend Baroness Denton his offer of help to promote the scheme. I am grateful to him for having raised that important subject tonight.
The hon. Member for South Down referred to the replacement of the Strangford ferry. In relation to the consultants' report, which concluded that the motor vessel Portaferry should be looked at, the Department of the Environment is about to appoint an economic consultant to assist in the preparation of the business case for the substantial investment involved. Such a proposal will have to compete with other priorities in the roads programme.
The hon. Member for North Antrim asked why stage 3 of the Antrim to Ballymena road had been delayed for so long. The Department of the Environment recognises the value of completing the dualling of the A26 between Antrim and Ballymena, and it is planned to achieve that in stages. The first stage was completed in August 1989, while stage 2 is programmed for the current year. Stages 3 and 4 have always been longer-term proposals, and are at present included in what is known as the six to 15 years major works programme.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South asked why rent increases were continually rising above the level of inflation. The rent increase coming into effect in April this year is held to the rate of inflation and is in line with the average percentage guideline increase announced for local authority housing for England. The average Housing Executive weekly rent is, at about £32, some £6 less than the average council house rent in England and Wales. Tenants on housing benefit will not be affected by the rise. I heard the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit Wellington college, and while I regret that I have had to put off that visit on a number of occasions, I look forward to going to the college soon.
A number of other questions have been raised that I do not have time to deal with, and I shall write to the hon. Members concerned about them. We have had a comprehensive debate. Through all of the complaints that inevitably come up in these debates has come an enormous pride in Northern Ireland and a determination to work for the benefit of Northern Ireland. That is a determination that we all share. We all realise that we have an enormous role to play in achieving peace, and I am sure that that is a role which we will not shirk.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

North Lincolnshire Unitary Authority

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Elliot Morley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise tonight some severe problems that are causing great concern to my constituents in the area that is to be covered by the new unitary authority of North Lincolnshire, which will take over from Humberside county council from 1 April. The new unitary authority is starting life crippled and with one hand behind its back, and I want to explore that with the Minister tonight.
The Minister will be well aware that the current spend that the new North Lincolnshire authority will inherit from 1 April for the services provided by all of the various councils amounts to something like £134 million. Humberside was spending at its capping level and 6.1 per cent. above its standard spending assessment. The indicative budget has put North Lincolnshire at 12.3 per cent. above its SSA.
Frankly, I have not seen a clear explanation why, out of the four new unitary authorities, North Lincolnshire is being treated so badly. My information is that, out of all the new unitary authorities, North Lincolnshire is being treated the worst, and it certainly is the most disadvantaged of any of the new authorities. The implications of this budget are severe: they imply a 30 per cent. increase in council tax. The inherited budget that the new council was taking over was supported by a £7 million reserve contribution from the former councils.
The background to this is that the Government have assessed the level of spending appropriate for the new North Lincolnshire council as £110 million. The new council will be able to raise £124 million, with the 25 per cent. increase in council tax, but there will still be a £10 million shortfall in the budget. There will have to be cuts in services of 8.5 per cent. and in education of 7.5 per cent., where the council has, understandably, tried to minimise the impact of cuts on such an important core service. There is very little prospect of the new council receiving any significant reserves from the successor councils.
The situation has been made worse because some councils have taken the opportunity to spend their reserves before the new councils take over. For example, Glanford council spent £1 million on what it terms "aid to parishioners". I do not criticise the parish councils and the town councils that have taken up the offer of this £1 million through the aid to parishioners scheme.
However, most of that money is going towards improvements to village halls—which is a worthwhile and important thing—but I suspect that many people, if faced with a choice between improvements to leisure facilities and to village halls, and improvements to village schools, not losing a teacher or not increasing class sizes, would prefer to see the schools protected.
The £1 million that Glanford borough council spent on the aid to parishioners scheme could have been handed over to the new North Lincolnshire authority and reduced the projected cuts in education from 7.5 per cent. to 5 per cent.—a significant saving. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon,


Central (Sir P. Beresford), is aware of this, because he received a delegation from North Lincolnshire council, made up of all parties. I thank him for receiving that delegation, and for listening to what it had to say. I emphasise the all-party nature of our concerns about the way that North Lincolnshire has been treated.
That delegation included my colleague, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—a Government Member, who sat alongside me and said the exact same things—the chief executive of the new authority, the leader of the Labour majority group, and the leader of the Conservative opposition. We were all there to say the same thing: that we felt that the North Lincolnshire authority was not being fairly treated in terms of the assessment of its spending, and of the grants it was receiving, and that it was very much at the mercy of the Department of the Environment in what it could do.
People are very confused about this. Humberside county council was foisted on people by the Government. Now the Government are upturning the situation, and many people do not believe that there would have been any support for this change if it had been made clear to them exactly what the implications of the abolition of Humberside were going to be: an increase in council tax of 25 per cent. and cuts across the board of 8 per cent.
Many of us who were concerned about the abolition of Humberside thought that the situation was going to be difficult, but I have to say that even people such as myself never thought that it was going to be as bad as this. Quite frankly, this situation is nothing less than a disaster in terms of maintaining services and the burden that people will have to pay in increased council tax.
The irony is that much of the pressure for change was orchestrated by the late Nicholas Ridley and the Tory-controlled Lincolnshire county council. There was also much misinformation put around at the time, not least about Hull and its alleged dominance and the fact that it was being subsidised from the south bank. It is now clear that the rural nature of North Lincolnshire and the way that rural areas are being discriminated against in terms of the standard spending assessment has told against it. Indeed, far from subsidising Hull, it is clear that a large element of subsidy is going from Hull to the south bank. That is partly why there have been such great difficulties.
For the sake of balance, I must point out that it is ironic that, although the council tax will be reduced in Hull under the calculations—with the abolition of Humberside—it is still expected to cut services, which seems bizarre to many of us watching from outside.
Hull, and to a lesser extent the north-east Lincolnshire councils, which have a greater urban content, have come out of the reorganisation far better than North Lincolnshire or the East Yorkshire borough. I am sure that the Minister will have seen a letter from his colleague, the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), which emphasises how he feels about the fact that the new unitaries are being badly treated by the Government in the terms of the calculations.
The new council has certainly done its best to try to deal with the problem, and has already found savings of £3.5 million. It has one of the smallest and most efficient management structures of the new unitaries, and has been singled out for praise by the Audit Commission. It has little room for manoeuvre, however. In year one, it has to

take over staff and services, and carry those commitments. It has no option but to implement the present increases in council tax and the cuts.
Although the new authority has decided to protect education as far as it can, through a lower cut, it is still a devastating blow for a fine education service, of which many of us who live in the area are very proud.
The projected cuts have implications in the loss of 121 teaching jobs, increases in class sizes, and a 12.5 per cent increase in school meal charges, and no new discretionary awards will be granted. That seems incredibly unreasonable at a time when education standards are a matter of public concern, and, indeed, of concern for the Government, and class sizes have been criticised by the Government's inspectors.
People are deeply angered by the cuts. They are well aware that the setting of grants and settlements is entirely the responsibility of the Department for Education and Employment. I am deeply angered about the cuts, particularly those in education—not only as a local Member of Parliament trying to represent the interests of my constituents, but as a parent with two children at local schools.
Glanford and Scunthorpe constituency is a close-knit and stable community. I have received hundreds of letters and petitions from the town and village communities—not only from people I serve, but from friends and acquaintances, and from both parents and governors associated with all the schools concerned.
At this stage, perhaps I should declare an interest, as my wife is a part-time teacher in one of the village schools. She is so angry about the situation that she could not even bring herself to attend the debate to listen to the arguments. Given the mood she is in, that is probably good news for the Minister.
I have here just a selection of the letters that I have received from communities in the area, from every village and every town and parish council—there are petitions and letters from every part of the constituency, from people who are concerned about the effect of the cuts on their schools.
Last Friday, I attended a packed meeting organised in Kirton in Lindsey church hall. Parents asked sensible and perceptive questions, and were deeply anxious about the impact on their junior school and also on Huntciffe comprehensive, which is one of the most over-subscribed schools in the region. There were parents from all over the rural area and from the town—parents from Berkeley infant school, which was named an outstanding school in the recent Office for Standards in Education report, and from St. Bede's, Crosby and many other schools that I do not have time to name.
All the people at the meeting had one thing in common—deep concern over the effect that the cuts will have on the future education of their children.
Only the Minister can rectify the situation; only the Department of the Environment can rectify it in terms of the grants and the way that the authority has been treated. It is not just an education issue; it could also affect the other services—there could be charges for home helps, the closure of social services homes, no capital investment, and reduced road maintenance. All the various services that the new unitary authority will inherit will be involved. It will also have implications for the


private sector, which has many of the contracts and works alongside the local authority. It will also feel the impact of the cuts.
The Minister will probably say—and I have to acknowledge—that there has been transitional help from the Government. The Government have made £3.5 million capital borrowing available for the reorganisation costs. But that funding will all be taken up by the cost of the reorganisation, and there will be nothing in the budget to mitigate the problem in terms of maintaining service standards.
The Government are also providing some damping, which will put a ceiling of £3 a week on council tax rises. That in itself is a recognition of the problems that North Lincolnshire council faces, because I am not aware of any other unitary authority that has attracted that damping subsidy to try to keep down the enormous increase in council tax. That provides official confirmation of the problem facing the council.
There is a potential solution, which is what the council brought to the Minister. In a recent debate, I challenged his colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, to deal with the issue.
The council has suggested that it be allowed a supplementary credit approval to minimise the cuts over a three-year period, with tapered loans beginning with £6.5 million in the first year. I believe that that is a reasonable and sensible solution. It will not cost the Government anything; it will allow the council to start life on a stable basis rather than having one hand tied behind its back. It will allow the council time to find efficiency savings and to build up reserves—as a prudent and efficient council, North Lincolnshire gives every sign of doing so.
The new council deserves a chance to set up and operate in a proper way, so that it can maintain services at the correct standard. I strongly urge the Government and the Minister to consider the proposal. That is why tonight's debate is important, and that is the issue that I want the Minister to consider and to which I want him to respond. I know that the case has been put to him and his officials, and he will know that the suggestion has all-party support in the community. It has the backing of his party and his councillors.
In correspondence that I have received on the subject, the Government have tried to say that North Lincolnshire council is not a special case. I strongly refute that. North Lincolnshire council is being treated worst among the four new unitary authorities in Humberside, and, as far as I know, it has greater difficulty than any new unitary authority that has been set up. North Lincolnshire is a special case, and it requires special treatment.
It is unfair to blame the new councils for what the old Humberside council may or may not have done in the past. It is not just Humberside council's policies that the council is absorbing, but the policies of the district councils, which are under differing political control. It is a new council, and it is not responsible for what has happened in the past. It wants to do the best for the community it represents; it deserves the chance to do so.
The council suffers the worst effects from the abolition of Humberside; it deserves sympathetic consideration for that, and for the way in which the standard spending

assessment has worked against it. I know that the issue of the SSA is far larger than we can possibly deal with in an Adjournment debate. I also know that the local government organisations have made a series of recommendations to the Government, and that there is a continuing debate about the best way to calculate and operate the SSA. All that will not help North Lincolnshire unitary authority. It needs help now, because it starts life on 1 April and time is running short.
In a debate on the setting of the rate, I obtained a promise from the Secretary of State that he would consider some of the points that I had raised with him in an intervention. Straight after that debate, I sent him a personal letter, which was the nearest thing that I have ever written to a begging letter. I have yet to receive a reply. It would be nice if the Minister gave me a positive reply tonight. There is a solution. I ask the Minister please, please, to give this issue his most sympathetic consideration.
I am sure that the Minister does not want me to beg him to do something about this disastrous situation as we near 1 April, but surely he will recognise and consider the dilemma of the people affected—the people who wrote all the letters and who are concerned about the effect on their children. They want their children to get the best possible deal, the elderly looked after, good-quality services, and the council to be given a proper start in life. Local people in North Lincolnshire deserve a better deal than they are getting under the present arrangements, and the Minister is the only person who can do something about that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on securing this Adjournment debate, in spite of the hour, and the fact that he has left me only a few minutes to reply. Of course, he has taken one side of the argument. The matter is not in our hands alone, and, in fact, we have reacted. He is correct to say that we met a deputation that included my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on this matter, which we took extremely seriously.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we accepted the proposal to abolish Humberside county council and to set up four unitary authorities, of which North Lincolnshire is one. As well as inheriting county functions from Humberside, it will take over district functions from the boroughs of Scunthorpe, Glanford and, in the area of the Isle of Axholme, Boothferry. Reorganisation will take place on 1 April this year, but there has been a shadow authority since last May.
I accept that, inevitably, there will be difficulties in the transition from one system to another. That is true across the country where such steps have been taken. We have taken steps to help North Lincolnshire and the other reorganised authorities to deal with those problems.
When a county is abolished and its responsibilities transferred to successor authorities, we need to work out a base budget for each new authority that must reflect its share of the county's budget and the pattern of spending in the area. We have made a similar calculation if the area of a district is split. This disaggregated budget—known as the notional amount—provides a baseline for the new authority as it prepares to take over its new functions, and serves as the capping baseline for the year after reorganisation.
The budget disaggregation exercise proved straightforward in Humberside and was agreed locally. North Lincolnshire's inherited 1995–96 budget is about £118.6 million. That was confirmed when the House agreed the relevant notional amounts report on 31 January. We also worked out what each authority's standard spending assessment—SSA—would have been in 1995–96 on the reorganised boundaries. North Lincolnshire's indicative 1995–96 SSA was £105.7 million.
Those figures show that the county had been spending more in North Lincolnshire relative to our assessment of its need to spend. In effect, it had been cross-subsidising services in one area at the expense of taxpayers in another.
The figures allowed us to work out the direct council tax effect of reorganisation—essentially, the difference between what council taxes were in each borough and what they would have been in 1995–96 on reorganised boundaries. That shows significant increases in the three areas that make up North Lincolnshire: an increase of £136 at band D for taxpayers in Scunthorpe; £161 for Glanford; and £166 for the Isle of Axholme area of Boothferry.
We have decided to provide transitional assistance to council tax payers who face unacceptable tax increases directly attributable to reorganisation. We will damp increases that exceed a threshold of £104 at band D—£2 a week. I stress the words "directly attributable to reorganisation". We do not propose to damp the consequences of an authority's own spending decisions, which I think is understandable.
North Lincolnshire is the only authority to qualify for that transitional reduction scheme. It will receive an additional grant of £2.18 million in 1996–97 to benefit local taxpayers. Our 1996–97 grant settlement for North Lincolnshire gives it an SSA of about £110 million-an increase of 2.4 per cent. over the equivalent figure for 1995–96.
Like many authorities, North Lincolnshire has argued that its SSA is too low. It argues, in particular, that the SSA somehow fails to provide for the higher concentration of need in Scunthorpe compared with the more rural parts of its area. However, the position is that the SSA calculation takes account of the aggregate needs of the area as a whole, both rural and urban.
It is for North Lincolnshire to decide the level of its budget for 1996–97, and it is not required to budget at SSA. Indeed, our provisional capping rules would allow it to set a budget as high as £123.8 million. After allowing for care in the community changes, that would mean an increase of 2.8 per cent. over 1995–96. If it budgeted at our provisional cap, North Lincolnshire would be 12.5 per cent. above its SSA—the level which our capping rules consider "absolutely excessive". That is very high, and it offers considerable scope for the authority to make savings over time.
We anticipate that the reorganised authorities will use the opportunity to cut costs and to improve efficiency—and they accept that. However, we recognise that there may be some one-off, transitional costs associated with reorganisation. So we have put in place a scheme for authorities to bid for supplementary credit approvals, allowing them to defer the impact of those transitional costs until the associated savings are achieved. We made £50 million available under the scheme for 1995–96, and a further £100 million for 1996–97.
North Lincolnshire bid for £5.6 million for 1996–97, including just more than £1 million for redundancy costs. Before Christmas, we allocated it £3.5 million, which includes a ring-fenced £1 million for redundancy. That makes a cumulative allocation of £5.3 million. The authority submitted a bid for a further approval of £6.55 million. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, North Lincolnshire has suggested looking at capitalising some of the spending, and that is being considered at this stage. However, the bid for £6.55 million is additional to the support already available.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that North Lincolnshire is a new authority, and as such, it has the chance to do things differently. It need not be constrained by the decisions and practices of its predecessors. I know from personal experience—in taking over from the Greater London council and then the Inner London education authority—that there is room for fast action to make considerable savings, rather than cuts, and that the reorganisation offers scope to make significant savings, which will not be as painful as the hon. Gentleman suggests. In light of that, I do not feel that there are exceptional local circumstances that would justify giving North Lincolnshire yet more by way of SSA.

Mr. Morley: I do not dispute the fact that the new authority may well be able to find efficiency savings—the authority itself does not dispute that fact. The issue at stake is that, from day one, year one, the authority must take over the staffing and the services from the predecessor authorities. Even according to the Department of the Environment's guidelines, 90 per cent. of staff must be taken over. The scope for finding savings in year one is very limited. Those savings may well be achieved in year two, year three and subsequently, but the real crisis will occur on 1 April.
Increased council borrowing would allow the authority to mitigate that problem, find the savings and repay the borrowed money to the Department of the Environment over time. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable and sensible policy, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that the authority cannot find savings from day one, year one.

Sir Paul Beresford: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman—and I speak from personal experience. There has been a shadow authority since May this year, which has done the planning to allow the new authority to move forward. It will inherit control from its predecessors, some of whose expenditure was quite excessive.
We have recognised its difficulty—that is why the authority has an SSA of £718 per head, and why the cap has been set at 12.5 per cent. above SSA. That is why it has damping of £2.2 million—it is the only authority which has it—and that is why the supplementary credit approvals have already been given for 1995–96 at £1.8 million and for 1996–97 at £3.5 million. We accept that there have been difficulties; they have been recognised. We are considering the argument made by North East Lincolnshire. If we accept that, it may be acceptable for North Lincolnshire.
Ultimately, however, we have considered the matter carefully and produced considerable funds. The opportunity exists to make savings from an early stage, and I am sure that they can be achieved. I say that having


been, as a council leader, through two such processes—admittedly in profligate authorities, but not quite in the same class as those of Humberside.
I am sure that, when it sets its mind to it, the new local authority will be extremely successful; it will produce the services, it will produce savings, it can do it efficiently, and it can start soon. Approximately 80 per cent. of the

staffing level will pass over as a standard order under TUPE-type conditions, but there is ample opportunity for the authority to make savings and reorganisations very early, especially—to leave the chalk face and the social services face—in administration behind the scenes. I am confident that the councillors will be able to do so, in spite of the scare tactics that have been displayed this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past One o'clock.